BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS

New Writ

Ordered,
That Mr Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a New Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the County Constituency of North Shropshire in the room of Owen William Paterson, who since his election for the said County Constituency has been appointed to the Office of Steward and Bailiff of Her Majesty’s Manor of Northstead in the County of York.—(Mark Spencer.)

Oral
Answers to
Questions

Justice

The Secretary of State was asked—

Forensic Services

Barry Sheerman: What discussions he has had with the Home Secretary on the quality of forensic services used in the criminal justice system.

Kit Malthouse: As the Minister with responsibility for cross-departmental criminal justice issues, I spend a lot of time talking to myself.

Barry Sheerman: I am sure the Minister is aware that many people in the criminal justice system are deeply worried about the state of forensic science, on which so much depends. I will not play the card that it is all the fault of privatisation; it is much deeper than that. Will he not only have a serious look at the evidence from the recent House of Lords inquiry, but keep in touch with me and with the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), my co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on miscarriages of justice? This is an urgent matter that goes to the heart of many miscarriages of justice. Will the Minister work with us to get it right again?

Kit Malthouse: I am more than happy to work with the hon. Gentleman on the issues that he raises. He is quite right that forensics are a critical part of a good and functioning criminal justice system. He will know that in the Home Office part of my job, significant work is going into the transforming forensics programme, which has received investment of more than £25 million in each of the past two years, bolstering and reinforcing the Forensic Capability Network. He will also know that the Mackey review, which was completed in April, has been looking at where forensics goes next, and that  there is a jointly chaired forensics sub-group of the Criminal Justice Board that looks at the issue across both Departments.

Tracey Crouch: Contrary to the question from the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), will the Minister welcome the developments in forensic science that led to last week’s conviction of David Fuller for two murders and multiple counts of sexual abuse in mortuaries? Will he commit to ensuring that with every development in science and technology, the system routinely returns to unsolved cases so that justice can be done?

Kit Malthouse: My hon. Friend makes a really important point. She is quite right that as forensic science develops—and it is developing very rapidly indeed—we are able to revisit some quite elderly cases in which evidence is still available and reveal the true perpetrators of some awful crimes. What we saw last week was a brilliant result by Kent police. A matter that I have to confess that I was involved with, where exactly what my hon. Friend describes took place, was the catching of the killers of Stephen Lawrence nearly 20 years after the killing: it was driven specifically by developments in the ability to assess microdots of blood in a way we had not been able to do before. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that all police forces, through the Forensic Capability Network, need to keep all so-called cold cases under review as science leads us towards greater and greater answers.

Road Traffic Offences and Penalties

Ben Bradshaw: What plans he has to further review road traffic offences and penalties.

James Cartlidge: As part of the Department for Transport’s longer-term and wider work on road safety, road traffic offences are kept under review to ensure that irresponsible driving and the risk it poses to others are appropriately punished. In the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, we are increasing the maximum penalties for causing death by dangerous driving and by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs, and we are introducing a new offence of causing serious injury by careless driving.

Ben Bradshaw: Businessman Hassan Nasser al-Thani, who killed retired railway worker Charles Roberts while driving his Rolls-Royce at nearly twice the speed limit, was given a short driving ban and fined last month because prosecutors accepted that he was driving carelessly, not dangerously. That is just the latest example of a road criminal receiving a ridiculously light sentence while their victim’s loved ones are left grieving for the rest of their lives. It has been nearly eight years since the Conservative then Secretary of State for Justice, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), promised
“a full review of all driving offences and penalties”—[Official Report, 6 May 2014; Vol. 580, c. 17.]
Where is it?

James Cartlidge: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who I recognise has been very vocal on these issues for a long time. I obviously cannot comment on the specific case; sentencing and decisions of the  courts are a matter for our independent judiciary, as he knows. However, we had a review in 2014 that looked at driving offences and penalties, which led to the consultation in 2016 and to the new measures that were debated in the House of Lords yesterday. Those measures significantly strengthen the penalties for the two offences that I mentioned, not least because the maximum penalty will increase from 14 years to life. I think that sends a strong signal about our overall position on these very serious matters.

Drug Smuggling into Prisons

Richard Holden: What steps he is taking to reduce incidents of drug smuggling into prisons.

James Davies: What steps he is taking to reduce incidents of drug smuggling into prisons.

Dominic Raab: In the 12 months to March 2021, the number of incidents in which drugs were found in prisons decreased by 6% to 20,295.

Richard Holden: What steps have been taken to ensure that state-of-the-art X-ray body scanners have been installed throughout the male prison estate, and that we are harnessing the best available technology to help our prisons to become places of rehabilitation rather than addiction to drugs?

Dominic Raab: My hon. Friend is right to ask that question. Since 2019, the Government have invested more than £100 million in prison security. We have installed 74 X-ray body scanners, which has resulted in more than 10,000 positive scans. I recently visited HMP Highdown and saw the equipment in action. It has stopped 100 smuggling attempts in the last year alone, involving drugs, weapons and mobile phones, and it allows that prison to operate safely.

James Davies: Prison staff have worked tirelessly throughout the pandemic to keep the prison population safe. They are also key to preventing instances of drug smuggling in our prisons. What is my right hon. Friend doing to support and resource their important work?

Dominic Raab: On top of the investment and the scanners, we have the Prisons (Substance Testing) Act 2021, which gives prison officers the powers to test prisoners for any psychoactive substance. We also now have enhanced gate security at 35 high-priority sites, and fixed and portable mobile phone blocking equipment to give officers all the tools that they need to keep their prisons safe.

Liz Saville-Roberts: I speak as co-chair of the justice unions parliamentary group. Drugs in prisons cause chaos, putting immense strain on prison officers, and such stress is a factor in the prison staffing crisis. This year, 134 band 3 officers left HMP Berwyn. Each officer’s training had cost £13,000; that is £1.74 million of public money wasted. Does the Secretary of State agree that implementing the recommendations of the pay review body is a key part of the solution to the crisis, and that good prison staff deserve proper wages?

Dominic Raab: The right hon. Lady is right to raise that issue. It is important to consider not just the technology that we have been talking about, which helps to keep prisons safe, but the men and women who—day in, day out, at considerable risk to themselves and under considerable pressure—do such an excellent job. She asked about the independent pay review body; this year we have accepted its recommendations, which is critically important and only right.

Jim Shannon: In the past, and perhaps even in the present, a great many drugs and other items have been smuggled into prisons by means of drones. Can the Secretary of State give any indication of what has been done to stop that happening, and thereby stop prisoners’ access to those items?

Dominic Raab: I was up at Glen Parva recently to look at one of the new state-of-the-art prisons. There, and across the prison estate, we are introducing improved cell windows, netting and other physical upgrades, as well as technology, to counter the threat of drones.

UK Human Rights Framework

Gavin Newlands: What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on reforming the UK’s human rights framework.

Marion Fellows: What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on reforming the UK’s human rights framework.

Scott Benton: What plans his Department has to reform the Human Rights Act 1998.

Dominic Raab: Under this Prime Minister and before the next election, we will overhaul the Human Rights Act to end its abuse by dangerous criminals and to restore some common sense to our justice system.

Gavin Newlands: Does the Secretary of State believe that the UK should remain a signatory to the European convention on human rights, or does he plan to join such liberal luminaries as Belarus outside the convention? Yes or no?

Dominic Raab: Yes.

Marion Fellows: Will the Secretary of State listen to calls from the campaign group Liberty, and commit himself to ending what it has described as a cynical use of violence against women and girls as justification for the planned HRA reforms, bearing in mind that the legislation has been instrumental in securing women’s rights?

Dominic Raab: As a trainee lawyer I worked at Liberty, and I have huge respect for the work that it does. In fact, back then I took a test case to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg relating to gender discrimination. However, it is also right that we listen to the wider voices, and we have conducted the independent Human Rights Act review to consider all the issues  from all the different angles. We are grateful to Sir Peter Gross for chairing that review and we will carefully consider its recommendations in the round.

Scott Benton: The Human Rights Act handed power to unelected judges, both at home and abroad, meaning that Britain remains tied to a foreign court. The creeping power of the courts is directly interfering with the Government’s ability to conduct their business, not least in preventing the Home Secretary from combating the unacceptable numbers of illegal immigrants crossing the channel. In the light of this, does my right hon. Friend agree with many residents of Blackpool in thinking that it is time we scrapped the Act altogether?

Dominic Raab: We will look at reforming and overhauling the Human Rights Act, and I think my hon. Friend raises a reasonable point. I support continued membership of the European convention on human rights, but a fair challenge has been raised by lawyers and judges past and present about the elasticity of rights and whether, when they are expanded, that decision ought to be taken by elected Members of this House and not by courts and lawyers. That is a fair challenge, and if hon. Members look fairly at the data from successful challenges on seeking the deportation of foreign national offenders, they will see that there is a good argument that there are too many cases of criminals being able to flout the system because of that elastic interpretation of rights.

Alex Cunningham: The victims of the most horrendous crimes wait years for justice in this country, the courts backlog might not be sorted for eight years, rape convictions are at shamefully low levels, and even with strict lockdown conditions, violence, self-harm and drug abuse are still rife across the prison estate, yet the Secretary of State is investing his time and energy in his personal obsession with dismantling the Human Rights Act. What message does he think this sends to victims about the priorities of his Government?

Dominic Raab: I have visited three prisons in my time as Justice Secretary. We have secured an important settlement for the courts backlog in this spending review, but on top of that, a lot of victims and their families say that it is galling to see foreign national offenders who cannot be deported and who are claiming their right to a family life. I think the hon. Gentleman needs to instil a little bit of balance and perspective, and we are going to reintroduce some common sense to the system.

Crown Court Backlog

Liz Twist: What his timescale is for clearing the backlog of Crown court cases resulting from the covid-19 outbreak.

James Cartlidge: We are already seeing the results of our efforts to tackle the impact that the pandemic has had on our justice system, and the number of outstanding cases in magistrates courts has dropped by around 80,000 since its peak in July 2020. I am pleased to say that the spending review provides an extra £477 million for the criminal justice system, which will allow us to reduce Crown court backlogs caused by the pandemic from 60,000 today to an estimated 53,000 by March 2025.

Liz Twist: The Government try to blame covid-19 for the backlog, but the Crown court backlog had already increased by 23% in the year leading up to the pandemic. Does the Minister regret the decision to slash sitting days in 2019?

James Cartlidge: I say to the hon. Lady with the greatest respect that it is quite extraordinary that anybody in this place should try to pretend that the pandemic has nothing to do with the backlog. If she visits a Crown court, she will see extraordinary measures having to be used to ensure that, with a jury present and potentially multiple defendants, a case can be disposed of while upholding the rules that we brought in for public health. It would be very welcome if the Opposition recognised that the best part of £500 million of investment to clear the backlog is a very significant step and a positive way forward.

Bob Neill: Last week, the Justice Committee visited the Crown court in Manchester and met the recorder, His Honour Judge Dean QC, and the rest of the judiciary. We also met court staff and practitioners there. I hope my right hon. Friend will join me in paying tribute to the hard work that they are all doing to try to keep the show of the jury trial on the road in these exceptional circumstances. Does he agree that it is extremely difficult to deal with jury trials when social distancing is required, and that we have to be realistic about that? Will he also note that the magistrates courts are now, as he observed, dealing with cases in a timely fashion? Is it perhaps worth looking again at the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 in relation to the powers of magistrates, because a lot of lower-level offences could be disposed of in magistrates courts?

James Cartlidge: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I also had the pleasure of visiting Manchester Crown court and saw the brand-new super court, put in place at a cost of £2.5 million to the Treasury to deal with multi-handed cases. I am pleased to say that today we have opened another in Loughborough. On the matter of magistrates, he will know that in the Judicial Review and Courts Bill that is before the House—in fact, we have just been in Bill Committee—we will increase the number of cases that are remitted from the Crown court to magistrates, saving 400 days in the Crown court to hear serious backlog cases such as rape and other indictable charges.

Lindsay Hoyle: It would help if you reopened Chorley.

Jake Berry: I will let you get the benefit of the applause, Mr Speaker.
On a recent trip out with officers from the Waterfoot police station in Rawtenstall, one of the challenges they talked about in getting cases to court is that the Crown Prosecution Service insists that full disclosure is done before charge. Will my hon. Friend go away and look at that? It is currently warranted officers doing that disclosure, when it could easily be a civilianised job. Will he agree to speak to the Crown Prosecution Service and his colleagues in the Home Office to ensure that Lancashire constabulary—as you know, Mr Speaker, the finest police officers in our United Kingdom—can be out getting criminals and not doing paperwork?

James Cartlidge: My right hon. Friend makes a good point and has significant experience as a lawyer himself. I can confirm that there is extra resource for the CPS in the spending review, and the Home Office and our Department work closely together on that question and will be looking at what more we can do to improve those processes.

David Lammy: On 5 October, the Secretary of State said it would take up to 12 months to get the backlog down to pre-pandemic levels. Yet we know now, according to the Ministry of Justice’s own analysis, that the backlog may not return to those levels until 2025. Just this morning, he said it could take up to eight years. Was he mistaken when he said it would only take a year, or has it taken him a little longer to get on top of the Department?

James Cartlidge: On the contrary, I can confirm that what my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor actually said was that cases would start to stabilise. They are stabilising now, at around a 60,000 backlog, but we accept that that is still significant. I think what matters to our constituents, though, is not the size of the number of cases outstanding—though that is important—but how long their case is going to take. On timeliness, we are seeing a very significant improvement, because we are working at full capacity. In July, the Crown courts in this country sat more days and disposed of more cases in a single month than at any time since November 2018. We are making significant progress, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will welcome the additional investment in the spending review, which will ensure we can go even further.

David Lammy: I am glad to see the Minister come to the aid of the Secretary of State, but he has not answered whether it is a year, eight years or 2025. The Secretary of State told Sky News today that he did not recognise that there was a workforce crisis in the criminal justice system. The Lord Chancellor has got to get real. The workforce is beyond crisis: it is in end times. Criminal solicitors and barristers are leaving in droves, cases are up right across the country, they are stalled right across the country and nobody is available to take them. The Criminal Bar Association is threatening to strike. How does the Lord Chancellor expect to reduce the backlog if there is no one available to take on the cases? Holiday time is over. It is time to act, or let the system collapse.

James Cartlidge: It is quite extraordinary: 43 minutes ago in Bill Committee, the Labour party voted to keep clogging up our courts with immigration and asylum cases with almost no chance of success. Quite extraordinary. Those cases take up 180 days of court time. That means a High Court judge, and that is precious resource. That is why we are taking that measure. It just proves that when it comes to the backlog in the courts, Labour says one thing and does another.

Former Offenders: Employment Support

Lee Anderson: What steps his Department is taking to help support former offenders into employment.

Alexander Stafford: What steps his Department is taking to help support former offenders into employment.

Dominic Raab: We will invest £200 million a year by 2024-25 in initiatives to reduce reoffending, including supporting prison leavers into employment.

Lee Anderson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that prisoners and ex-offenders out on licence should help fill the labour shortage, that on release all prisoners, including some ex-Labour MPs, should be ready for work and that starting work should be a condition of their licence?

Dominic Raab: One of the first things I did as Secretary of State was host an employers’ summit attended by 600 organisations last month, where we committed to working together to improve employment rates for prison leavers. I have seen how that works at Ford prison and at HMP High Down, whether we are talking about HGV training or call centres. We know that if we give offenders the skills, and if they have the attitude to take a second chance, getting into work significantly reduces the risk of reoffending and that protects the public.

Alexander Stafford: Does my right hon. Friend agree that giving offenders the chance of employment is key in driving down reoffending rates? What additional support is his Department providing to prisons to ensure that offenders are seizing the employment opportunities available to them?

Dominic Raab: In addition to the spending review settlement and the employers’ summit, we are making sure that we design prisons the right way. I visited Glen Parva, one of the new state-of-the-art prisons that we are building with our £4 billion investment programme. It had in-cell technology to ensure that inmates can learn skills, particularly numeracy and literacy, and state-of-the-art workshops, so that not only can they get skills, but we can get employers in to get inmates into meaningful, purposeful work.

Stuart McDonald: I absolutely welcome the recognition that employment is pivotal to rehabilitation, but why then the obsession with short prison sentences? What is the point of locking somebody up for one or two months, which achieves absolutely nothing but will often cost somebody a job and a chance of rehabilitation?

Dominic Raab: We think that justice must be served; punishment is important. The short sentences are often for those who have systematically flouted and breached community sentences. To cut crime, the answer is to make sure justice is served. As well as incarceration where that is required for the purposes of punishment, we work on drug rehabilitation, skills and employment so that those offenders who want to take a second chance to turn themselves around—not all of them will—have the opportunity to grasp it.

Matthew Hancock: I welcome the Secretary of State’s focus on helping offenders into employment. Given estimates that more than half of offenders may be dyslexic and given the impact of dyslexia and illiteracy on the ability to work after a  sentence, what is he doing to make sure that screening is available to ensure that prisoners can get the right training, especially on literacy if they are dyslexic, to help them into more successful work afterwards?

Dominic Raab: One issue we have discussed—I will be hosting prison governors at a roundtable shortly—is making sure that there is an immediate diagnosis within days of an offender getting into prison, so that we know two things: their numeracy and literacy levels, which will of course bring in other special educational needs, to which my right hon. Friend rightly refers; and what the next qualification is that they may—or may not—be able to achieve, so that we have a decent plan that gives them the chance to improve their skills, get into work and avoid a life of crime.

Judicial Review and Courts Bill

Angela Crawley: What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the Judicial Review and Courts Bill.

James Cartlidge: The Bill had its Second Reading in this House on 26 October. As the hon. Lady knows, it is now in Committee—she is part of that Committee. The Bill fixes inefficient processes that cause delay in our justice system and gives judges more flexibility to resolve judicial reviews in a practical way. The Secretary of State discusses these matters with Cabinet colleagues, and we are confident that the package of reforms in the Bill is proportionate and effective.

Angela Crawley: Judicial independence is under threat across Europe, so given the Minister’s recent chilling comments that the UK Parliament should correct decisions of the judiciary that Ministers disagree with, can he see the concerns that this raises for the principle of the separation of powers? How can the UK credibly join other countries who threaten the independence of judges?

James Cartlidge: We have been debating these matters at length. The Bill is a very good one. It strengthens judicial review in relation to quashing orders with the new remedies. Far from what the hon. Lady said, those new remedies—for example, being able to suspend a quashing order—will bring great benefit to our constituents and support better public administration.

Andrew Slaughter: The Bill has a whole chapter on coroners yet entirely neglects the key issue of giving bereaved families a fair hearing at inquests. Victims’ families have no right to legal aid, even when many state institutions are represented at public expense. At one inquest, 18 public bodies were represented but families had to fight to be heard. Will the Minister commit, now, to non-means-tested funding for bereaved families when the state is represented, and table amendments to the Bill to achieve that?

James Cartlidge: I am pleased to confirm to the House that we are currently drafting the measures that will ensure that we remove the means test on exceptional case funding for such matters. Furthermore, I can confirm that the changes should be implemented early next year.

Anne McLaughlin: There has been much gnashing of teeth in the past week over MPs who breach standards and their right to appeal—natural justice, I think they call it. Why, then, do the Government propose to remove a vital last line of defence for ordinary people by removing Cart and Eba-type judicial reviews—the type used by the most vulnerable and the least powerful?

James Cartlidge: We have just debated this issue at great length in the Bill Committee and I understand that the hon. Lady feels strongly about it but, as we have explained, in those cases there are—we keep using this phrase—three bites at the cherry, whereas in almost all other areas of law there are only two, so the Bill is fair in that sense.
I am bound to say that it is incumbent on the Government to look at resource. When we have a backlog like we have, we have to ask whether using up 180 days of court time for cases that have a tiny chance of success is the best use of that resource. We have a backlog of very serious cases to deal with; that is our Government’s priority and where we are focused.

Anne McLaughlin: We have just spent a considerable amount of time arguing about that issue in Committee, so let me turn to another part of the Bill. The presumption in favour of prospective quashing orders will mean that this Government will be able to treat ordinary people unlawfully, safe in the knowledge that even if the courts say they have done so, there will be no redress or compensation, and there will even be time for the Government to change the law so that the unlawful thing becomes lawful. I wonder what it is about the wealthy, powerful friends of this Government that makes their right to so-called natural justice so much more compelling than the right of the ordinary man or woman on the street.

James Cartlidge: The hon. Lady knows that that is a wholly erroneous interpretation of the presumption clause, which is there simply to ensure that we expedite the accumulation of jurisprudence.

Rape and Violence against Women and Girls: Prosecutions and Convictions

Wera Hobhouse: What steps he is taking to support prosecutions for violence against women and girls.

Andrew Gwynne: What steps he is taking with Cabinet colleagues to improve the prosecution and conviction rates of those charged with rape.

Dominic Raab: The Government are providing £150 million this year for victims and witnesses and the support services relating to all types of crime. Of that, more than £50 million has been ringfenced specifically for rape and domestic abuse victims.

Wera Hobhouse: In Bath we are fortunate to have the charity Somerset and Avon Rape and Sexual Abuse Support, which empowers survivors to tell their stories. With just 2.4% of reported rape cases ending in a conviction, too many women do not come forward for fear that they will have to relive their trauma, and they  do not get justice. Will the Secretary of State commit to mandatory training in the Crown Prosecution Service on understanding the impact of trauma and supporting victims, so that all victims of rape come forward in the knowledge that justice is being served?

Dominic Raab: I thank the hon. Lady for raising this very important issue in the forensic way that she does. The funding that I referred to includes funding for 700 independent sexual violence advisers and independent domestic violence advisers, precisely to give victims the support, advice and confidence to see their cases through. We have to bear down on the attrition rate—as it is called in the criminal justice system—of victims falling out of the system because of lack of confidence.
To respond directly to the hon. Lady’s point, before Christmas we will publish criminal justice scorecards not only for general crime but specifically for rape, so we will be able to see the performance at every step in the system. That will help to spur an increase in performance, which will give victims the confidence to come forward and get prosecutions to court.

Andrew Gwynne: When it comes to this issue, I would hope that all Members from all parts of the House speak with one voice, but the Secretary of State will know that recorded rape offences have hit the highest number on record at 61,000, with just 1.4% leading to a suspect being charged. There were only 1,333 convictions, and yet the Government could not even agree to the target on improving prosecutions in their own review. Will the Secretary of State, who I know wants to get on top of this issue, commit to getting conviction and prosecution levels back to those last seen in 2016 by the end of this Parliament?

Dominic Raab: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to point to this as a problem, a challenge—and a systemic one at that. It is of course good news that a number of victims have been willing to come forward, talk to the police and report that crime, but it cannot stop there. That is why we are publishing the score cards that I mentioned to the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin). We are looking at every stage of the system, including improving phone technology and digital disclosure. We are making sure that victims can access an online or telephone device 24 hours a day, seven days a week. He will know about Operation Soteria, which is shifting the focus of investigations from the victim to the suspect so that they are suspect-centric, and that we are also trialling section 28 pre-recorded cross-examinations so that vulnerable types of victim do not have to go through the added trauma of giving evidence in front of an assailant.

Nusrat Ghani: Women and girls do not seem to be safe from sexual predators whether they are alive or dead. David Fuller violated 100 bodies at a Kent hospital. Many of my constituents are impacted by these crimes. At present, necrophilia is illegal under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, with a maximum sentence of just two years. Can my right hon. Friend consider reviewing that to ensure that the maximum sentence is extended so that the punishment reflects the gravity of the crime?

Dominic Raab: I share my hon. Friend’s total disgust at what we have learned about those hospitals in Kent, and, indeed, in relation to the David Fuller case more broadly. Although I have already said this, as has, I think, the Health and Social Care Secretary, I am very happy to repeat that I am willing to look at those sentences again. Incidents of this kind of event are rare, but they are abhorrent and the sentence must match the level of outrage, the trauma and the renewed trauma that it will put the victims’ families through.

Peter Bone: Women and girls who are victims of human trafficking suffer extreme violence, yet, last year, there were only 91 prosecutions and 13 convictions for specific modern slavery offences. However, there is some good news: the charity Justice and Care has been working with the Government to provide victim navigators to help in prosecuting these evil gangs. In nine out of 10 instances where the victim navigator is involved, we get the evidence to prosecute. Will the Government look at extending their support for that charity?

Dominic Raab: I am very happy to look at that. We have a record-breaking amount from the spending review, certainly the largest in the past 10 years, for justice issues, and I will be looking very carefully at the support that we can provide for victims. My hon. Friend referred to the work of the charity in question, and it dovetails with what I have already mentioned to the House about the independent sexual violence advisers. We know that, if the victims who have gone through these awful crimes get the support they need, they are less likely to fall out of the justice system. That is one of the important ways that we will secure more prosecutions.

Laura Farris: On the Home Affairs Committee, we recently heard from Sir John Gillen, Baroness Stern and Lady Dorrian, all of whom have conducted independent reviews into rape or serious sexual violence in some part of the United Kingdom recently. They were unanimous in saying that the single most important factor in preventing a rape victim from withdrawing from the criminal process is the ability to give evidence early under section 28 procedures. I know that my right hon. Friend shares my view on this. Will he tell the House when he expects this procedure to be rolled out across the nation?

Dominic Raab: That is incredibly important not only for the victims of rape, but for other vulnerable victims. The evidence so far from the pilots and the trials needs to be gleaned and carefully evaluated, but I can tell my hon. Friend that this is something that I want to look at very carefully not just because of the ability to secure a more effective prosecution, but to deter defence lawyers from perhaps not the universal practice, but certainly the widespread practice of encouraging the accused to wait until the moment in court before they take the decision on whether to plead guilty.

Anna McMorrin: Whether victims of sinister spiking, rape or sexual assault, women and girls are being retraumatised by the system. They are cross-examined, disbelieved and made to feel like they are on trial, despite having had their own bodies used against them. No wonder 80% of rape victims do not  report it. Last night, Channel 4’s “Dispatches” exposed the ugly truth behind women’s experiences and about a system that is letting victims down. As one woman put it:
“It’s soul destroying not to be believed when you’ve been through so much. They discredit and they destroy you.”
Will the Secretary of State tell us who is on trial here, and explain to women and girls what he will do to put this right and restore their faith in a broken justice system?

Dominic Raab: I totally share the hon. Lady’s sense of frustration on behalf of victims up and down the country. There is no single silver bullet, precisely because it is a system-wide failure. As has already been mentioned, more victims are reporting to police stations than before; that is positive. We have Operation Soteria, the whole purpose of which is to shift the way in which investigations address these crimes to make them suspect-centric, rather than focusing on the behaviour of victims.
There are a number of technical things that we can do: section 28 has been mentioned; and improving phone technology and digital disclosure is another aspect. It will be important when we publish the criminal justice scorecards for rape that we can see not just at a national level, but—in due course, following that—at a local level, which areas are getting it right and why those other places are not following best practice, and that we ensure we can correct the gaps.

Electronic Tagging of Offenders

Kieran Mullan: What progress his Department has made on the roll-out of electronic tagging for offenders.

Aaron Bell: What progress his Department has made on the roll-out of electronic tagging for offenders.

Kit Malthouse: I am happy to report excellent progress on our electronic monitoring programme. We recently expanded our world-first acquisitive crime project, GPS tagging all those released from prison who were convicted of those crimes, to cover half of England and Wales. Between April and September, more than 1,500 offenders had to wear a sobriety tag.

Kieran Mullan: The Minister will know that it is actually a relatively small number of hardcore, prolific offenders who are responsible for so much of the misery that is inflicted on our constituents. I therefore welcome the progress on tagging and encourage him to think about other offences that we could use it on. What discussions has he had with the police about the resources that they need to bring back in people who may be breaching their tags?

Kit Malthouse: It is typical of my hon. Friend to think about the burden on policing. He is one of the primary supporters of the police in this House; I am grateful to him for that. We hope that the GPS tagging programmes—specifically, as he says, for prolific acquisitive criminals—will actually reduce the burden on policing. As he knows, something approaching 50% of offenders who have been burglars or robbers go on to reoffend.  By putting a tag on their ankle so that we know where they are 24 hours a day, we essentially put a probation officer or police officer alongside them. We hope that that will be a huge deterrent. It also means that if there is a breach or somebody is identified as being at the same place that a crime has occurred at the same time, it is much easier for the police to find them because we can track them down through the tag. As we expand the programme further, from six to 19 police forces across the country, we need to monitor the impact on policing, albeit that, thus far, the police are enthusiastic proponents of the scheme.

Aaron Bell: Newcastle-under-Lyme plays host to the North Staffordshire Justice Centre, so I know that my constituents will welcome what the Minister has said. What steps will he take to invest in the latest technological advances, so that tagging will keep pace with the behaviour of offenders?

Kit Malthouse: That is a brilliant question, not least because my hon. Friend has put his finger on the button of where we need to go next. As part of the £183 million that the Treasury has now invested—with some confidence, I like to think—in the future roll-out of our electronic monitoring programme, we have £19 million to invest in future technology. In particular, I am keen to stimulate the market to find the holy grail of tagging, which would be a drugs tag that we could fit to the ankle of offenders with that kind of problem, and therefore deter them from taking drugs in the first place.

Community Payback

Stephen Metcalfe: What steps his Department is taking to roll out community payback.

Kit Malthouse: We are investing an extra £93 million over the next three years to recruit 500 additional community payback staff, so that we can increase hours worked to a record-breaking 8 million a year.

Stephen Metcalfe: Requiring offenders to give back to their communities not only delivers a just punishment but sends out a clear signal to other criminals that crime does not pay. Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that where a community sentence is given, the offender actually then serves it?

Kit Malthouse: I can assure my hon. Friend that we are investing significant extra resources, time and effort into making sure that community payback is both seen and effective. He is quite right that we want the public to see that justice is done, and we want offenders to know that their punishment is meaningful. There is a third reason why community payback is important, however, which is that offenders need to learn what the rest of us know—that we all have to play our part in building a great community and a safe neighbourhood. By this method we can almost teach them the value of contribution to their local neighbourhood.
We want to make sure that community payback is visible, and that means that there will be more people out there on the street cleaning up, improving the environment and so on. That will enable us to square the circle, with a sense of repaying a debt to society but also an ongoing commitment to it.

HMPPS Staff: Government Pay Policy

John Martin McDonnell: What recent assessment he has made of the effect on (a) recruitment, (b) morale and (c) retention of Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service staff of the Government’s pay policy for public sector workers.

Victoria Atkins: I start by thanking all prison and probation officers and staff across the country. They do an absolutely vital job protecting the public and rehabilitating offenders, and they deserve our thanks and our acknowledgment. Pay awards for this financial year across HMPPS are subject to the public sector pay pause, which was imposed due to the covid-19 emergency, but I welcome the Chancellor’s recent Budget announcement on public sector pay and the fact that from 2022, it will return to a normal pay setting process.

John Martin McDonnell: I am an honorary life member of the Prison Officers’ Association, with which I have worked for the last 25 years. Morale is at rock bottom among prison staff, and that relates to pay. In response to the chair of the justice unions committee, the Secretary of State said that the Government were accepting the pay review board’s recommendations. The pay review board has made it clear in its report that the remit that the Government have given it precludes it from making a full recommendation on pay awards. It finds that to be incompatible with its independence and in conflict with its role as a compensatory mechanism for the fact that prison staff are not allowed to strike. May I request that the Minister meet a delegation from the justice unions group to talk about morale and the development of a pay strategy?

Victoria Atkins: I am delighted to inform the right hon. Gentleman that I have met not just the POA but the Prison Governors Association and many of the smaller unions that represent the interests of vital members of staff such as chaplains and educationalists, who play a really important role in the prison system. I very much look forward to working with the POA and others not just on matters of pay but on ensuring that we value their role in the prison system. I want prison officers to feel safe in their workplace, for example. That is not up for question. We should be making sure that they feel safe, and that is one of my priorities as Minister with responsibility for prisons.

Topical Questions

Caroline Ansell: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Dominic Raab: Over the last month, I have visited HMP High Down, Ford prison and the new state-of-the-art prison at Glen Parva. Today, we opened a new super-court at Loughborough, which will help to reduce the courts backlog, along with a real-terms increase in MOJ funding of 12% by 2024-25.

Caroline Ansell: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s work to bring together employers in the offender employment summit, and the significant investment  that is to come. One more key element to addressing reoffending is the third sector. Will he join me in paying tribute to Sussex Pathways, which does such tremendous work for offenders pre and post release, so that they can make good on some of the opportunities afforded them in prison? What specific steps is the Department taking to connect women with employment and education opportunities?

Dominic Raab: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We need a tailored approach to the female prison estate. I can tell her that the number of women in custody has fallen by almost a quarter since 2010. That reflects the Government’s investment in community services and community sentences. Custody should remain the last resort for women, but we need to ensure we have better services that are better tailored. That is why we have 500 new places in the women’s estate—a mixture of open and closed conditions—tailored particularly to mental health challenges, addiction, skills and work. Indeed, there are some trailblazing examples of work in prisons, such as The Clink restaurant in HMP Downview.

Lyn Brown: Baby A died in Bronzefield women’s prison in 2019. Mum called for help time and time again, and no one came. She had to bite through her umbilical cord as her baby died. Baby A’s mother had not been convicted of any crime; she was there on remand. She and her baby were in a place that should have kept them safe, but the prison system is not keeping our women safe. Self-harm among women prisoners has increased by nearly half in three months. Many are self-harming over and over again. This House knows what needs to be done. The Minister knows what needs to be done. There is even a female offender strategy. When are this Government going to do it?

Victoria Atkins: I thank the hon. Lady for drawing the House’s attention to that tragic case. She will know that we asked the ombudsman to examine it in detail, and we are very grateful to the ombudsman for having gone through it so that the Department, HMPPS and other providers can learn the lessons from that terrible incident. We have set out extensive plans to help women who are pregnant, mums and babies in prison, and that framework has been published and is being very much implemented. On her wider point about supporting women in custody, we have the female offenders strategy. The Government maintain our aim that we should support women outside of custody and give magistrates the confidence to impose community sentences, but we must ensure that when women are in the female prison estate, they are supported, but importantly, rehabilitated. If they leave prison, we want them to be able to re-enter society and we want to protect the public.

Lindsay Hoyle: May I just say to both sides that this is a very important question, and it should really be dealt with in the main questions? Topicals are meant to be short and punchy. I understand why the answer has to be detailed, because the issue is far, far too important, but please can we put such important questions earlier in the agenda? That way, it will be easier to get through them.

John Lamont: Across the UK, more and more young women are reporting being spiked by injection, a truly abhorrent attack on people just trying to have fun. What are the Government doing to protect women who are being attacked in this way?

Kit Malthouse: We share my hon. Friend’s abhorrence at this appalling new phenomenon. To reassure him, the Home Secretary and I are in close touch with the National Police Chiefs’ Council, which is co-ordinating local and national investigation assets across the country to try to prevent the crime and help protect young women.

Gavin Newlands: We heard the pretty shameful remarks to the Opposition earlier about immigration cases. If the Secretary of State wants to help reduce the backlog in court cases, will he consider speaking with the Home Secretary and dropping plans to criminalise asylum seekers for exercising their legal rights under international conventions signed by this country? Those plans are estimated to cost more than £400 million.

Tom Pursglove: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. The Government are firmly committed to the measures set out in the Nationality and Borders Bill that will deter people from making hugely dangerous crossings of the English channel. We need to take action. Public concern on this is profound. We simply cannot have people putting their lives at risk at the hands of dangerous people smugglers. We must put the smugglers out of business.

Alexander Stafford: Last week a new report was published by a group of Conservatives on Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council, which found multiple current examples of what they allege to be active grooming and child sexual exploitation in multiple locations across Rotherham. The working group felt that the response from Rotherham Council was
“practically non-existent, and at times the working group has felt that various elements within the Council are deliberately avoiding talking about CSE.”
What steps can the Secretary of State’s Department not only to bring the perpetrators to justice but to ensure that the sentencing fits this abominable crime?

James Cartlidge: I am grateful to my hon. Friend; these are sensitive matters. We remain clear that allegations of child sexual abuse and exploitation must be thoroughly and properly investigated by police. Since Alexis Jay’s report into child sexual exploitation in Rotherham, significant improvements have been made in how local authorities and the police safeguard children both in Rotherham and across the country. However, we know that there is further to go, and we continue to drive improvement in response to actions set out in the “Tackling Child Sexual Abuse Strategy”. We are also bringing forward measures in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill that will ensure that an additional cohort of serious and sexual offenders will now serve two thirds of their sentence in custody, instead of half.

Karen Buck: Two and a half years ago, practitioners were promised that the criminal legal aid review would be published in summer 2020. We are still waiting. The all-party parliamentary group on legal aid conducted an inquiry into the sustainability of legal aid, and the report was published last month. We heard compelling evidence from practitioners about the impact of inadequate legal aid rates. The consequent crisis in recruitment and retention is feeding directly into the courts backlog. Does the Minister agree that there is no route through tackling the courts backlog that does not also deal with the crisis of inadequate legal aid rates?

James Cartlidge: I pay tribute to the hon. Lady in her role as chair of the APPG. It is precisely because I see the importance of legal aid that I went to the meeting at which she launched the report. I very much enjoyed it; colleagues from both sides of the House were there. Key to this is the criminal legal aid independent review under Sir Christopher Bellamy QC. Of course, we are still waiting for him to publish that, but we look forward to seeing it as soon as possible.

Theresa Villiers: The criminal justice system has had a good spending review settlement, which is welcome and, frankly, a relief. Will Ministers ensure that that helps to put prolific offenders for crimes such as burglary behind bars?

Dominic Raab: My right hon. Friend is right that we have seen a 12% boost to the Department’s budget, which will see £11.5 billion invested by the end of the Parliament. That will help us build prison places and invest in tagging as well as the drugs, skills and work regimes for people in prison and on licence to cut reoffending and protect the public.

Joanna Cherry: The Law Society of Scotland has explained in detail why clause 2 of the Judicial Review and Courts Bill requires the Scottish Parliament’s legislative consent—it is basically because judicial review is a devolved matter. When I raised that with the Minister on Second Reading, he said that he would write to me addressing the Law Society’s detailed arguments. When should I expect to receive that letter?

James Cartlidge: Without wishing to sound like one of the famous online shopping alerts that we receive by email, I confirm that it has been dispatched and that the hon. and learned Lady will receive it imminently.

David Evennett: Many victims of crime feel extremely vulnerable. What steps is my hon. Friend taking to bring forward measures focused on protecting the victims of crime by ensuring that they are constantly supported through the criminal justice system?

Tom Pursglove: My right hon. Friend is a long-standing advocate for victims in his community. I hope he will be reassured that we will consult as soon as possible on how we best guarantee victims’ rights in law and the level of support that they can expect. We will want to hear from a wide range of individuals and stakeholders  to inform that process and shape policy, getting it right from reporting the crime through to the courtroom experience.

Jack Dromey: Sarah Child, aged 26, was run down and killed by a driver doing 64 mph on the Walsall Road. Poppy-Arabella Clarke, aged three, was run down and killed on the Walsall Road by a driver who could no longer see and had been warned never to drive again. With RoadPeace, we have campaigned for tougher penalties for those who kill with a car, and some welcome progress has been made. However, does the Minister not understand that changing and strengthening the law is one thing and that helping to enforce the law is something different? With 1,000 police officers cut in the west midlands and huge cuts to Birmingham city council’s budget, they are unable—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Minister.

Kit Malthouse: I understand the hon. Member’s distress at that case. As he knows, we are busy about the job of increasing police capacity. We are over halfway to the 20,000 extra police officers—we have 11,053—and a significant number of those are heading towards the west midlands.

Robbie Moore: The main reason for my call for a Rotherham-style inquiry into child sexual exploitation in the Bradford district is to bring justice to the victims of these offences and help ensure the safety of children across my constituency. Will my hon. Friend join me in that call so that we can tackle the issue once and for all?

James Cartlidge: I absolutely recognise the trauma endured by victims and survivors and their need for answers. The Government continue to be clear that it is for local authorities in individual areas, which are responsible for delivering services, to commission local inquiries.  However, we expect Bradford Council to take the most thoroughgoing approach to ensuring that all lessons have been learned and that local partners are doing everything possible to identify offending and protect children from harm.

Neil Hudson: As a veterinary surgeon I really welcome the fact that the Government have listened to the calls that have been made and are introducing a new pet abduction law. Sadly, in rural areas such as Penrith and The Border, other animals are frequently stolen, including farm animal livestock, horses and ponies. Will my hon. Friend look to expand the legislation from pets to encompass all animal abduction offences, including those involving farm animal livestock and horses, so that we can put an end to the horrific and distressing crime of animal theft?

James Cartlidge: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I do see the point he makes. As he knows, the focus has been on dogs and other pets that we keep in the home, but I am happy to speak to colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and to get back to him about what we think of his suggestion.

Kevin Hollinrake: The Justice Secretary is working with the Law Commission on bringing forward a new corporate offence of failure to prevent economic crime. There are concerns that the offences will be downgraded to regulatory offences, rather than those involving criminal sanctions. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there must be criminal sanctions if we are to have a true deterrent against this terrible crime?

Dominic Raab: I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue. He has been following it for some time, and I have worked with him on it in the past. We will make sure that we have the right combination of toughness and robustness and send a clear message that these are not victimless crimes.

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Anthony Mangnall: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if she will make a statement on Bosnia and Herzegovina and the potential of a renewed conflict in the Western Balkans.

James Cleverly: I thank my hon. Friend for his interest in the current situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and he is right to highlight it. The recent political violence is of significant concern to the UK Government. Milorad Dodik, the Bosnian Serb member of the presidency, has threatened to withdraw Republika Srpska—the entity—from a range of state institutions. That is an act that the High Representative calls a de facto secession. This is a dangerous and deliberate attempt to distract from a failure to improve standards of living and to tackle corruption. It is unacceptable.
The UK fully supports the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Bosnia and Herzegovina. After the devastating conflict of the 1990s, the region has lived in peace for 26 years, and the Dayton political system, which should have been used to deliver progress and development for citizens, has been exploited by politicians who are focused on building and maintaining their own position.
We recognise the important role that the EUFOR peace and stabilisation force has played, and we welcome the renewal of its mandate—an important deterrent against those malign actors who wish to see instability on Europe’s doorstep. We worked hard in the Security Council to ensure that it authorised EUFOR’s mandate for a further 12 months. The UK continues to play an active role. My hon. Friend the Europe Minster was in Bosnia and Herzegovina in the summer to support that work.
The High Representative will visit the UK for meetings in December. The UK is in close contact with him to ensure that we work in co-operation and is giving him vocal support, including on the use of executive powers should the situation require it. That is a further check and balance on the destabilising actions in Bosnia and Herzegovina. At the upcoming NATO Foreign Ministers meeting, the Foreign Secretary will push for more focus and resource on Bosnia and Herzegovina, and on the need to rebuff Russia’s actions.
The international community also has collective responsibility to ensure that there is no return to the conflict of the 1990s. Along with our international partners, we are ensuring that the High Representative’s position and work are secured, and we will continue to urge Russia to return to productive engagement with the peace implementation council’s steering board. Along with our international partners, we are working to tackle the divisive rhetoric and actions from some politicians in Bosnia and Herzegovina, including the threat to re-establish a Republika Srpska army and to pull out of other established state-level institutions.
The UK is committed to helping the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina build a better future in a stable and prosperous state, with strong institutions. We support the NATO Headquarters Sarajevo, including through  the secondment of UK staff officers who play an important role in building the capacity of the armed forces. We are providing capacity building and expertise to those actors who demonstrate genuine commitment to progress.

Anthony Mangnall: For almost 30 years we have been engaged in the Balkans, and until recently in Bosnia and Herzegovina. In December last year we withdrew from Operation Althea, the international stabilisation force in the country. The decision to withdraw came just as Bosnia was about to be put under the worst possible pressure by Bosnian Serb secessionist leaders. In the words of the High Representative, Christian Schmidt, who reported to the UN Security Council last week:
“Bosnia and Herzegovina faces the greatest existential threat of the post-war period…the prospects for further division and conflict are very real…ignoring or downplaying this state of affairs could have perilous implications for the region and beyond.”
The secessionists are operating with the support of Russia, as we saw at the Security Council meeting last week, and Serbia, as is evident from the joint military exercises held in the past few weeks between Serbia and Bosnian Serb forces. This is a dangerous situation in a country where ethnic cleansing and genocide were perpetrated in the 1990s. With that in mind, will the Minister tell the House that it is still Government policy that the redrawing of borders in the Balkans was finished in the 1990s, and that they will not tolerate any secessionist adventurism? The EUFOR presence on the ground in Bosnia is hardly sufficient to respond to any security challenge, with only 700 troops on the ground and inadequate equipment. What consideration has been given to redeploying UK forces in support of EUFOR and through NATO? What consideration has been given to imposing sanctions on anyone undermining the Dayton peace accords, which is in line with the US but sadly lacking from the EU and UK?
In an article written last week, Baroness Helić quotes the former UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, commenting on the Bosnian genocide in 2000. He said the most important lesson was that
“we must recognize evil for what it is, and confront it not with expediency and compromise, but with implacable resistance.”
Now is the time for us to act, not to wait. If we fail to do so, we will further weaken the international rules-based order and embolden our enemies, and we will also see death and destruction rage again in our backyard.

James Cleverly: I reflect on the passion with which my hon. Friend puts forward the case, and he is completely right. The period of borders being redrawn in that region is behind us. We saw the devastating conflicts of the 1990s, and nobody should be willing to go back to that period. We support EUFOR. I beg my hon. Friend’s indulgence, but I am not going to speculate on what a future stabilisation or military force composition might be like. As I have said, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will shortly be raising this issue in the strongest terms at the meeting of NATO Ministers of Foreign Affairs in Riga. We support the NATO Headquarters Sarajevo, and my hon. Friend will know that it is a long-standing policy of the UK Government not to speculate on future sanctions designations, for fear that doing so might undermine their effectiveness. We are determined to ensure that the peace the region has enjoyed for the past quarter of a century is maintained.

Wayne David: I congratulate the hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) on securing this urgent question. Today the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina is extremely serious. I visited Bosnia and Herzegovina in 2013 as part of a delegation with the British group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union. I well remember our chaperone in Sarajevo telling me how she had been shot in the leg by a sniper in the 1990s when she was a small child. We do not want those dark days to return.
At the time of my visit in 2013, the situation was precarious, with the Dayton agreement widely seen as a holding operation. It did not really provide a way forward, but it did help keep a lid on the conflict. Now the situation is undoubtedly dangerous. The Dayton agreement is under serious strain, with the very real risk that the country will fragment and conflict will once again erupt. There is the distinct possibility that the President of Republika Srpska, one of the two autonomous elements of Bosnia and Herzegovina, will withdraw from the federal Bosnian army and create a separate force. With the threat of Serb withdrawals from other state institutions, the situation is extremely serious, and not only for Bosnia; as the EU’s High Representative has said, there could be implications throughout the western Balkans if the situation deteriorates in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
My questions to the Minister are these. First, what pressure are the UK Government applying internationally to prevent the Serbs in Republika Srpska from fracturing the Bosnian army and the institutions of the Bosnia and Herzegovina state? Secondly, what representations have the UK Government made to China and Russia for them to adopt a more constructive attitude towards Bosnia and Herzegovina? Every effort must be made to insist that all ethnic groups continue to work together. Thirdly, what co-operation is there between the UK and our EU allies to ensure that the EU’s 700-strong peacekeeping operation, EUFOR, plays an effective role in helping to maintain peace during the coming months?

James Cleverly: The hon. Gentleman makes some incredibly important points, and in many respects I echo the concerns that he has raised. With regard to working with our international partners, which goes to the core of his questions, we maintain a close engagement with EUFOR. Having left the European Union, we are no longer formally part of it, but, alongside the United States of America, we pushed for the mandate renewal, and we were very pleased that that was successful. We will continue to support it.
The key institution here is the High Representative, Mr Christian Schmidt, and we will continue to lobby in support of the work that he is doing on the international stage. However, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that we have to prevent the fragmentation of this country, because that would almost inevitably be the precursor to further conflict. Many of us in this House have seen the genuine horror that conflict in this region brings, and we must work together with our international partners to do everything we can to deter that from happening.

James Gray: I call attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests with regard to a recent visit to Bosnia as part of the all-party parliamentary group for the armed forces.
Is it not extraordinary—I am sure the whole House will be amazed—that the trigger for the current instability in Bosnia and Herzegovina was that the High Representative brought in a law outlawing genocide denial? The last place in the world where genocide can be denied is Republika Srpska; all the High Representative did was say that that is now outlawed. Does my right hon. Friend not agree that behind all this lies Russia, and Serbia itself, and that unless we do something very dramatic, serious and urgent about it, we will face a return to the kind of chaos that we saw in Bosnia and Herzegovina in the late ’80s and early ’90s? We really must act seriously on this. We are facing catastrophe—a disaster—in Bosnia, and just saying “we’ll think about it” is no good at all.

James Cleverly: My hon. Friend is sadly right that we see the hand of Russia at play here. We need to work with the High Representative and our international partners to ensure that there is not a fragmentation. My hon. Friend is right that it is unacceptable to deny holocaust in whichever arena it occurred, but for many of us, this is the event that was a significant part of our lives, and we have to ensure that it is not repeated.

Alison Thewliss: Remembering Srebrenica tweeted earlier that this day in 1993 saw the destruction of the historic bridge in Mostar, a poignant reminder of the conflict and genocide in living memory. Our thoughts should very much be with the people who live there and who fear a return to the types of horrors they saw in the past.
What steps will the Minister take to ensure that the UK plays its part in securing peacekeeping efforts, as needed? We welcome very much that the UN mandate to EUFOR was renewed last week. It must be seen to be fulfilled. Will he tell us a bit more about the discussions he has had with key regional partners in the EU, the US and leaders in Bosnia and Herzegovina itself? If the situation deteriorates further, we risk a return to the sectarianism of the past and the violence to civilians that that entails, and emboldening Russian influence in the region. Will he tell us more about what steps he will take on a multilateral level to ensure that the UK plays its part alongside regional allies to ensure that existing frameworks are managed in a way that protects the settlement within the country? Lastly, are there any considerations about the nature of the UK’s role in supporting EUFOR specifically? What contingency plans is he making, should we require to be brought into that?

James Cleverly: I thank the hon. Lady for her questions. Specifically on EUFOR, as I said, the UK and the United States of America were vocal in our support of the mandate renewal and we are very pleased that that happened. Although we are not formally a member of EUFOR, we have seconded staff officers to support capability-building work and we have given direct support to the Bosnia and Herzegovina armed forces, which are an essential part of the security framework. As I said, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will speak at the upcoming NATO Foreign Ministers meeting and push for more focus and resource on Bosnia and Herzegovina, and for the collective need to push back against Russia’s actions in the area. With regard to what we might do next, that will need to be a collective  decision by the international community, because working in accord with each other is the only way we will make meaningful progress. However, I can assure the hon. Lady that this is, and will remain, a very clear focus for UK foreign policy in the region.

Bob Seely: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) for securing the urgent question. As someone who spent time in Yugoslavia during the wars of the 1990s, I do not underestimate how unpleasant this could get, and how violent and how quickly. I want to look at Russia. We know it has been selling arms to the ethnic Serbian police. We know it has form in handing out passports to people in conflict areas as a reason for intervention. We also know there is now significant potential for European Union forces to come into direct conflict with Russian proxies. Is the Minister aware of the true danger of that situation, and that it follows a pattern not only in the western Balkans, but in eastern Ukraine and, now, on the Belarus border? We, and NATO and the EU, are being significantly tested. Do we have a policy?

James Cleverly: I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for his points. I recognise the contribution he has made and his understanding of the issues in the region. He is right that those of us who remember the headlines and images that came out of the region not that long ago are horrified at the prospect that it might slip back into that level of violence. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) visited the region extensively earlier this year. She and our officials are well aware—well aware—of the circumstances on the ground. We will, as I say, continue to work with our international partners, both European partners and NATO partners, to do everything we can to prevent the region slipping back into the kind of horrific sectarian bloodshed we saw, sadly, only 26 years ago.

Tony Lloyd: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall). We know how quickly the situation can deteriorate in the Balkans. The bloodshed and the flight of refugees we saw in the past will be with us if we see secession by Republika Srpska. I have to put it to the Minister that he said nothing really about what our red lines are. It is not enough to wait for secession. The steps that Prime Minister Dodik is talking about now are steps to secession. We have to make our red lines clear to Russia and Serbia, as well as to Prime Minister Dodik. In that context, EUFOR simply has no peacekeeping capacity if things deteriorate. We now have to have a strategy for Bosnia and Herzegovina.

James Cleverly: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. We recognise that EUFOR is there to do a particular role. We would, of course, all collectively much prefer to prevent, rather than have to deal with, a return to violence. If there is an escalation—we will work hand in glove with our international partners to try to prevent that—that would need to be discussed at the NATO Foreign Ministers meeting. Any red lines put forward would need to be done in conjunction with our international friends and allies. However, I completely take the hon. Member’s broader point about the need to work collectively to prevent this situation slipping back into violence.

James Sunderland: As a Bosnia veteran, I am very familiar with that country. I went there recently and I know for a fact that fears about security are justified. Britain signed the Dayton agreement in 1995, so we are part of the solution. Is it perhaps time for another ministerial visit to Sarajevo?

James Cleverly: My hon. and gallant Friend makes an important point about the need for visible support for the institutions that have helped to keep the peace for such a long time. As I said, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills, went to the region recently. I am not in a position to commit to exactly when a future ministerial visit will be, but the Foreign Secretary will bring this up at the NATO Foreign Ministers meeting in Riga in the near future. I have no doubt that it will be the location for a ministerial visit in the not-too-distant future.

Naseem Shah: I thank the hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) for securing this urgent question. The world cannot make the same mistakes again. In the 1995 genocide, more than 8,000 Muslim men and boys were killed in a single day. The US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, Gabriel Escobar, told Congress last week that the US is working with the EU to
“make sure there are consequences for any illegal or any destabilising actions”
in Bosnia. The hon. Member asked what representations have been made and the Minister answered that they will be made at Riga shortly. Given what happened in Afghanistan when the Government were asleep at the wheel, my concern—I think rightly and fairly—is whether the Government are asleep at the wheel again on this one. Why have we not already made representations? What representations, if any, have we made to the EU, world partners and NATO?

James Cleverly: I think the hon. Lady is frankly wrong in her assessment. This is not a question about Afghanistan, but she will know that we started the evacuation process in Afghanistan in spring this year, long before the fall of Kabul. I have already said that in conjunction with our European partners and the United States of America, we made representations at the Security Council to renew the EUFOR mandate. We have done that important and significant piece of work in conjunction with our international partners. We have made public statements and acted in support of the High Representative, Mr Schmidt, and we will continue to do so. As I said, the Foreign Secretary will bring the issue up at the NATO Foreign Ministers meeting in Riga. What else we might do will be defined by the circumstances, but I assure the hon. Lady, you, Mr Speaker, and the House that that will remain a focus for Her Majesty’s Government.

Alicia Kearns: I thank the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Defence Secretary for their time on this issue, as well as colleagues, because there have been many ongoing conversations over the past few weeks. Dodik has one goal: the destruction and failure of the Bosnian state. As chair of the all-party group for Bosnia and Herzegovina, I have invited the High Representative to visit Parliament, and  I hope that you will join us, Mr Speaker, when we meet him as parliamentarians from across the House. The time for diplomacy is now, so that we do not have to have this conversation again because we have been able to ride out the crisis. Will the Minister consider activating the conflict centre; review all conflict, stability and security fund programmes to see whether they are fit for purpose; and work with Defence Ministers to increase our deployment to NATO and Sarajevo and consider joint cross-Balkan deployments and missions?

James Cleverly: My hon. Friend again speaks with great passion, but perhaps more importantly, with authority and experience on this issue. I pay tribute to the work that she and the other members of the APPG do. I assure her that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is looking seriously at what administrative structures need to be in place for us to respond to an escalation of the situation. Obviously, our priority is to try to prevent an escalation. I am very glad that she has extended an invitation to the High Representative, because public, visible support for his work is incredibly important, both from Government and Parliament. I echo her calls that that should be done internationally and not just here in the UK.

Jamie Stone: I am sure that many others, like me, regret that the late Paddy Ashdown is not with us here today, because he would have a lot to say as an expert. There has been much talk about the tilt to the Indo-Pacific, and yet, as others have said, Russia and possibly China are not hesitating to get involved in European affairs in our own backyard. So I ask the Minister: first, is our defence poise possibly wrong in terms of the tilt to the Indo-Pacific? Perhaps we should concentrate on our own backyard. Secondly, I have spoken before about defence cuts and the cut in the size of the Army. I wonder whether I can tempt him to agree that this is no time to cut the size of our armed forces.

James Cleverly: The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the work of the late Lord Ashdown. Indeed, I should have paid tribute to him in my opening statement, because his work was incredibly influential and the whole House should recognise that. I will not be drawn on the size of the armed forces, but I will make the point that the Indo-Pacific tilt, as set out in the integrated review, should be read not as an exclusive focus on that part of the world, but as an additional focus. We absolutely recognise that the security of this region and our peace and security are interwoven—he is right to highlight that—and that is why I can assure him that we will work diplomatically with our international friends and colleagues and through the conversations that we have at the NATO Foreign Ministers meeting shortly in Riga to look collectively at what our response might need to be. Ultimately, the win would be to put pressure on Republika Srpska not to go down this separatist path.

Martin Vickers: As the Prime Minister’s trade envoy to the western Balkans, I have made two recent visits to Bosnia-Herzegovina. Indeed, I was in Sarajevo on Thursday and Friday last week and there is no doubt that there has been a significant  increase in tensions. I pay tribute to our ambassador and his excellent team over there, who are working not only to reduce those tensions, but to develop our economic ties and the economy of the country to the benefit of all the people there, particularly the young people who are leaving the country in enormous numbers. I urge the Minister to continue his work with colleagues in the Department for International Trade so that we can develop our economic ties with not just Bosnia-Herzegovina, but the whole western Balkan region. Will he urge politicians of all descriptions over there to work together and seize the moment now for peace and prosperity?

James Cleverly: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that international trade is a force for good and a force for peace. “When goods cross borders, soldiers do not”—I paraphrase, but I am sure that every Member of the House is familiar with that. Ultimately, we all have an interest in the economic stability and prosperity of the region. The belief that there is a failure in the economic opportunities for people in the region is a big driving force for the actions of Republika Srpska. To directly answer his question, I will continue to push for increased trade with the western Balkans and Bosnia and Herzegovina, because it is to the benefit of both us and them that it continues.

Sarah Champion: I was in Bosnia a few weeks ago with the all-party parliamentary group for the armed forces. I was genuinely shocked that the segregation of communities felt worse than in the ’80s, with some schools even teaching that the genocide of Bosnian Muslims did not exist. Can the Minister explain why we seem to be shifting our development money away from stability? Can he tell us what he is doing to safeguard the investment that we have already made in that country for peaceful dialogue and tolerance? Will he consider embedding atrocity prevention in all our embassies to prevent this situation from happening in other countries?

James Cleverly: The hon. Lady, as always, puts forward thoughtful ideas. I will pay close attention to her final point. It is essential that we never allow the genocide that happened to be forgotten. We must ensure through our diplomatic work that it is not expunged from the curriculum for young people in the country. We will seek to work with our international friends and partners to prevent the situation from slipping into conflict, but if we are successful, we will still have to go further and ensure that our diplomatic efforts are focused on bringing communities together. I recognise that money plays a part, but in this context I think that our diplomatic heft is probably of greater impact than our official development assistance contributions.

Nusrat Ghani: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) on securing the urgent question. The secessionists, having denied the genocide and tried to discredit the post-war Bosnian state, have created a crisis that could get violent. I know that the Minister has offered a commitment, but as he has heard today from hon. Members, we want the issue dialled up to a priority, whether that is through challenging the EU’s failure, putting pressure on China and Russia, or even making troops available, not just to protect but to collect evidence of any atrocities that may take place.
There is a red line that the Minister can draw right here, right now. Ministers have repeatedly said that we recognise genocide only when it is declared by the UN. The UN has declared a genocide. The Office of the High Representative has said that anyone who denies that genocide was committed will face a sentence. Perhaps the Minister could say that we stand behind that statement.

Lindsay Hoyle: We will have to speed up if we are going to get through all the questions.

James Cleverly: I appreciate that, Mr Speaker.
My hon. Friend will know that the UK has zero tolerance for holocaust denial, wherever it comes about. I can assure her that we will continue working with our international friends to ensure that the Republika Srpska understands that its actions are unacceptable and that there will be consequences if they continue.

Stephen Farry: I worked in Bosnia in the late 1990s with political parties and civil society. Does the Minister recognise that one of the downsides of the Dayton agreement was that it institutionalised political difference and crowded out any multi-ethnic voices from the political space? What more can the Government do today to support civil society, especially on a multi-ethnic basis, to have a more powerful voice to combat the forces of division in Bosnia?

James Cleverly: I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point about the Dayton accords. They serve an important function in underpinning peace; I do not think that they were ever envisaged as a permanent structural solution to the situation. Ultimately, our focus at the moment is on the High Representative and his work in the here and now. The future evolution of a political and social structure in Bosnia and Herzegovina is a subject that we will need to look at once we have resolved the current issue.

Scott Benton: The break-up of Bosnia and Herzegovina would create massive instability in the region, which would not be in the best interests of neighbouring countries such as Serbia. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government are engaging with Belgrade to encourage leaders in the region to ensure that that wider instability, which would be so damaging, is not borne out?

James Cleverly: My hon. Friend makes the incredibly important point that this is not a situation in which countries in the region will be disinterested. We have active bilateral conversations with countries in the region—the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills, has been there and is very active—and will continue to do so because the instability in Bosnia and Herzegovina is not something that anyone, either in the UK or in the region, wishes to see again.

Mike Amesbury: Stephen, from my constituency of Weaver Vale, was a peacekeeper who saw at first hand the genocide in the Balkans, on our doorstep. The Minister referred to close co-operation with EUFOR. What are the details? What does that co-operation involve?

James Cleverly: As I have said, the UK is not formally a member of EUFOR, having left the European Union, but we have secondees in the NATO headquarters in Sarajevo and we have been very supportive of the mandate renewal. Exactly what future support may be required is a question that we will have to decide, depending on the circumstances at the time, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that we stay very focused on ensuring peace in the region.

Richard Holden: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) on securing the urgent question. Some years ago, I visited Bosnia and Herzegovina with Stephen Parkinson—now Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay—as part of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy programme. May I ask the Minister to ensure that the UK Government will oppose all attempts to redraw borders? Alongside the sadly necessary consideration of hard power and sanction options, will he do all he can to continue to dial up all the soft power levers at our disposal to pressure those who would seek to damage the fragile peace in Bosnia?

James Cleverly: My hon. Friend makes the incredibly important point that we would much prefer to resolve the situation through diplomatic efforts and persuasion rather than force. That will be the focus of our work, and we will do it in conjunction with our international partners.

Andrew Gwynne: On 14 October, Dodik said that he would force the Bosnian army to withdraw from Republika Srpska by surrounding its barracks if the west tried to intervene. He said that he had “friends” who had promised to support the Serb cause—a presumed reference to Serbia and Russia, which are both seeking to undermine the role and the authority of the High Representative.
This is a massive test for NATO. Does the Minister agree that it is crucial for us to bolster the Office of the High Representative, get NATO on the same page with a solution and tell Russia in no uncertain terms that we will not accept the break-up of Bosnia and Herzegovina?

James Cleverly: I have to confess that I find myself in complete accord with the points that the hon. Gentleman makes.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call Jonathan Edwards.

Jonathan Edwards: Diolch yn fawr iawn, Mr Speaker. The Minister will know that the situation is very worrying. If it quickly deteriorates into conflict, the inevitable consequence will be a refugee crisis, perhaps—hopefully not—on the scale that we saw a few decades ago. That would put enormous pressure on neighbouring countries. It seems to me that all Governments internationally are between a rock and a hard place, but one thing that we can do is start preparing contingency plans with neighbouring countries for dealing with a potential refugee crisis.

James Cleverly: The hon. Gentleman is right that, whatever the ultimate resolution is to the attempted break-up of Bosnia and Herzegovina or to a potential refugee crisis, it will need to be achieved in conjunction  with countries in the region. That is why the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills, has been—and no doubt will continue to be—active in speaking to all countries in the region.

Margaret Ferrier: The Srebrenica massacre in 1995, the worst atrocity on European soil since world war two, was a horrific genocide that cannot be repeated. Dodik has alluded to alliances with China, Russia and Hungary, which could provide support should conflict break out. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the likelihood and impact of those countries intervening in the region?

James Cleverly: We are aware of the likely hand of Russia in the matter. We will ensure that we continue with a dynamic assessment of the situation on the ground. Ultimately, we will work with the member states of the European Union, as well as with the United States of America, to do everything we can to ensure that the situation does not escalate once again to the violence that sadly we saw in the 1990s.

Racism in Cricket

Navendu Mishra: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on reports regarding racism in cricket.

Chris Philp: I am appearing here this afternoon in place of the Minister for Sport—the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston)—who is in Geneva having meetings with football officials.
I will start by being very clear about something on which I know the whole House will agree: there is no place for racism in sport. Indeed, there is no place for racism anywhere in society. It must be confronted, it must be eradicated and it should never be written off as just “banter”.
The Government are extremely concerned by the reports of racism at Yorkshire county cricket club. Quite simply, the situation faced by Azeem Rafiq was unacceptable. It should never have been allowed to happen in the first place, and it should have been dealt with properly during the initial investigation. We have made it clear to the England and Wales Cricket Board that this requires a full, transparent investigation, both of the incidents involving Azeem Rafiq and of the wider cultural issues at Yorkshire county cricket club. The ECB is now investigating the matter fully. It took action against the Yorkshire club on Friday, stripping it of the right to host international matches, and has suspended a player.
There have been a number of resignations from the Yorkshire board—quite rightly—including that of its chairman. Lord Patel of Bradford has taken over as chairman, and has set out the approach that he will be taking to tackle the issue at Yorkshire. Crucially, he has started by apologising to Azeem Rafiq, but we know that that will not undo the pain that Azeem feels. More action is needed, and we have called on Lord Patel and the ECB to investigate fully, to eradicate racism where it exists, and to tackle the culture that can support it. In addition, the ECB is now undertaking a regulatory process. It must take strong action where it is necessary, and that action must be transparent and swift, for the benefit of cricket.
The ECB has also launched the independent commission for equity in cricket to look at wider issues that go beyond Yorkshire. It is chaired by Cindy Butts, a highly respected anti-racism campaigner. She is a board member of the Kick It Out campaign in football and is also, as you know, Mr Speaker, a lay member of your Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. I have great confidence in her independence and her phenomenal track record in this area. This terrible case—the awful case of the abuse that Azeem Rafiq should never have suffered, but did suffer—shows how much more needs to be done to stamp out racism in the game, and I urge anyone who has experienced discrimination in cricket to approach Cindy Butts’s commission and report what they have experienced. I understand that the Equality and Human Rights Commission has requested information about this incident. That is quite right, and I encourage the EHRC in its work.
Sport should be for everyone, and it should not take cases such as this to bring that to life. The Government applaud Azeem Rafiq’s courage in speaking out, and encourage anyone who has been similarly affected to do the same. This must be a watershed moment for cricket. The Government will closely scrutinise the actions taken by the ECB—the Minister for Sport met the board last week to discuss this topic—and by Yorkshire county cricket club in response to these damning allegations. The investigations to which I have referred must be thorough, transparent and public. That is necessary to restore the public’s faith in cricket in Yorkshire and beyond. Parliament is watching, the Government are watching and the country is watching. We expect real action, and the Government stand ready to step in and act if those involved do not put their own house in order.

Navendu Mishra: I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question.
The leaked racism report from Yorkshire county cricket club has exposed the extent to which serious allegations of discrimination have been mishandled, covered up and sadly, it seems, entirely ignored over a long period. Players and former board members of the club have since come forward expressing their regret, but it is too little, too late. The question of how to address this should not be solely concerned with what to do next; rather, we should ask how the club arrived at such a low point. Why were players not properly investigated, why were no processes in place to address these allegations, and why did it take the leaking of the report to kick the club into action?
Members on both sides of the House have spoken publicly about how appalled they are, so I hope that the Minister will tell us today what concrete action the Government intend to take to tackle racism in sport. I know that my good and hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) wrote to Mr Mark Arthur, but unfortunately he has not received a response to his letter. The news over the past week has focused on cricket because of this report, but we know that it is not in cricket alone that racism and discrimination fester. The Government’s intervention on this particular issue must be a model for the way in which other sports address racism.
I want to express my solidarity with Mr Azeem Rafiq—who has shown great bravery in the face of this injustice—and with all who have been discriminated against in cricket and other sports. Sport should be for everyone. No one should be excluded or belittled because of their race, gender, sexual orientation or disability, and I hope that today will be a landmark in the addressing of these serious issues.
In the light of the leaked racism report—which I hope will be published in full this week—1 hope that the Equality and Human Rights Commission will investigate Yorkshire county cricket club and publish a full set of recommendations for how it will tackle racism in future. We must not forget that it was only when there were financial repercussions and corporate pressure that Yorkshire actually acted; that is simply unacceptable. We also know that, although nearly a third of all cricket players at grassroots level in the UK are from ethnic minority backgrounds, the figure drops to only 4% among cricketers with professional contracts. That too is shocking.  I hope that today the Government will set out how they intend to work with the England and Wales Cricket Board to ensure there is independent scrutiny of the sport, so that incidents such as this never happen again and the sport is diversified at all levels.

Chris Philp: I shall try to respond briefly to those further questions from the hon. Gentleman.
I entirely agree that the conduct of Yorkshire county cricket club in trying to brush this matter under the carpet and ignore it was completely unacceptable, and it is right that the chairman and others have resigned. The club’s conduct has no justification whatsoever: it is disgraceful, and we condemn it unreservedly. The point about the transparency of these inquiries is important: they need to take place in public, they need to be open, and the country and Parliament need to be able to scrutinise them fully.
I also agree with what the hon. Gentleman said about the need for wider action in cricket. Clause 10 of the ECB’s own county partnership agreement requires it to increase ethnic minority representation, and we need to hold it to account to deliver that. As for the question of independent oversight of what Yorkshire and the ECB are doing, the Equality and Human Rights Commission is obviously independent, and is now rightly asking questions. The Government fully support that process, and, like Members of this House, will be following and scrutinising it extremely carefully.

Peter Bottomley: I stand in solidarity with the hon. Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra), and thank him for bringing this issue to the House today. Let me recognise both his constituency and yours, Mr Speaker, by pointing out that the Lancashire league was the first to show that it was possible to have teams that were inclusive and could show an example to the rest of the country.
The issue raised by Matthew Syed in an article in The Times today was “What is the minimum test of credibility?” It is clear that this club has failed that test, but I do not think we should point the finger at just one club. We should be asking where discrimination, inequality and barriers to access exist in other sports and in other parts of life.
I say here, on the Floor of the House, that when we discovered that one of our local councillors in Worthing had posted unacceptable comments on the Patriotic Alternative white supremacist website, we suspended him. There will now be a by-election, and we have a south Asian candidate who is longing to be a Tory councillor. That shows that action can be taken, and whatever our party politics, we need to stand together on this.
The final point that I want to put to my hon. Friend the Minister is this: if we are going to ask the EHRC to take on this particular role in greater depth, it will need extra funding. I suggest that the Government talk to the EHRC to establish how much extra funding it needs and then add it on, so that this does not push aside other parts of the EHRC’s important work.

Chris Philp: I associate myself with the characteristically wise words of my hon. Friend the Father of the House. I agree that we need to stand together, across the whole House, in combating and fighting racism wherever it  occurs in our society. The local example given by my hon. Friend was a good illustration of that. The EHRC is of course independent and will make its own decisions about what to investigate, but I think it is clear that the House is encouraging it in its work. It did, I believe, receive a funding uplift not long ago, but its funding arrangements remain under continual review.

Jo Stevens: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) for securing the urgent question. I too want to pay tribute to the bravery and persistence of Azeem Rafiq. He has already given others the courage to come forward, and I am sure that more will do so.
Racism destroys lives, and that is why allegations must be properly, fairly and transparently investigated. The handling of this case is a textbook example of what should not happen. A legal investigation team was second-guessed by the club’s panel, there was a failure to apply the legal tests correctly to the evidence gathered, and Yorkshire even changed the inquiry’s terms of reference part-way through, preventing the investigation team from drawing conclusions about institutional racism. One has to wonder whether it was taking lessons from the Prime Minister on that. Yesterday, Lord Patel took the first steps to begin to right these wrongs. The next step must be that the rest of the board leave their posts. Their role in this shameful fiasco gives them no right to continue to hold positions of power in the club. I, too, hope that the EHRC will formally investigate what has occurred.
Racism has no place in cricket or any other sport, and Michael Holding has said of this case:
“Each sport or industry can try to and put their house in order, but the message has to reach society at large or no real meaningful change can take place.”
Society at large includes all of us here, and it of course includes the Prime Minister. His well-publicised comments in the past have helped to enforce a culture where racism is seen as banter, so it was good to hear the strong words from the Minister today about committing to stamping out racism, but the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State need to understand that words alone are not enough. They must lead by example. Failing to do so gives credence and encouragement to racists.

Chris Philp: I think we should avoid making party political points on an occasion such as this. We should be standing together, as we have been doing, to resolutely condemn racism and to tackle it wherever it is found. That means ensuring that the ECB investigation is independent and transparent, it means supporting the work of the independent commission chaired by Cindy Butts, and it means supporting the EHRC in any work that it does. I agree with the shadow Secretary of State’s remarks about the board of the cricket club. They bear collective responsibility and I do not see how they can continue.

Julian Knight: I wish to thank the hon. Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) for bringing this urgent question to the House. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Like many cricket lovers in this country, I feel a fool. I thought my sport was more colour-blind than most, but  it most certainly is not. At Yorkshire, it is clearly institutionally racist, and Lord Patel has the mother of all jobs in turning that once venerable club around. I would like to chide the club about the report, because, despite publicly promising to issue it to myself and to the Government, it has not yet done so. That report needs to be in our hands today.
Does my hon. Friend agree that this is more than a Yorkshire problem, and that it is a national problem within cricket? Although I agree that the likes of the ECB must now have a permanent place on the board at Yorkshire to ensure that it is guided to a better place, I think that we also need substantially better whistleblowing procedures in the sport. We also need the likes of Ebony Rainford-Brent and Michael Holding, who are an inspiration not just to cricket but to wider sports and to our society, to be front and centre in cricket’s battle against racism. It is going to be a tough fight, but I truly believe that the whole House will agree that it is one that must be won, out in the open so that we can all see exactly what is going on.

Lindsay Hoyle: I say gently to the Minister that I totally agree that if information is being withheld from a Select Committee that is carrying out its duty, that is a major matter. I hope it will be resolved today on behalf of the Committee.

Chris Philp: I wholeheartedly agree with the Select Committee Chairman’s comments. On the question of the report, the Government have also requested to see it. As of about an hour ago, when I was last briefed on this, we had not received it. I would like to make it clear that the Select Committee and the Government should receive copies of the report and that it should be put into the public domain. I want to make it very clear today from the Dispatch Box that Yorkshire County Cricket Club should do that immediately. My hon. Friend made the rest of his remarks with great eloquence and power, and I agree entirely with every word that he said.

Gavin Newlands: I certainly agree with all that has been said thus far, including what you have said from the Chair, Mr Speaker. Racism has no place in cricket, in sport or in society, period. This shocking episode has come out during the T20 world cup at a time when we should be celebrating all that is good in the game. That being said, Scotland might not have had the results we would have liked in the world cup, but the performance in qualifying was exemplary.
Turning to the important matters at hand, Azeem Rafiq must be commended for his bravery in coming forward and speaking out on Yorkshire’s shameful racist treatment of him. Conversely, Yorkshire’s actions have been disgraceful almost from start to finish. As we have just been hearing, their report remains unpublished. They have been forced into publishing a summary and only then sent a heavily redacted version to Mr Rafiq—a further sign that all was not right. The credibility of some of the report’s findings must also be questioned, with a racist term that was used against Mr Rafiq having been deemed to be “friendly and good-natured banter”. It is clear that Yorkshire have a lot of work to do, but does the Minister have confidence that the ECB is the right body to oversee a culture change in cricket, given that it has been repeatedly warned about this issue  for years? Moreover, does he agree with the Health Secretary’s suggestion that if the ECB does not take strong action as a result of these events, it is not fit for purpose?

Chris Philp: I broadly agree with many of the sentiments that the hon. Gentleman has just expressed. I agree that racist abuse of the kind suffered by Azeem Rafiq is certainly not banter. It is racist abuse, and it should be called out and action should be taken whenever and wherever it occurs. In relation to the ECB, I have a high level of confidence in the independent commission for equity in cricket, which is being chaired by Cindy Butts. As I have said, she is a highly respected anti-racism campaigner. The eyes of the country and of Parliament are upon these inquiries, and the EHRC is looking into this as well. We expect them to do their duty.

Kevin Hollinrake: I thank the hon. Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) for bringing forward this important urgent question. As somebody who has played cricket in Yorkshire for the best part of 40 years—sadly not for Yorkshire, but in Yorkshire—I have to say that I have not heard that term expressed on a cricket field or in a dressing room for many decades. Nevertheless, this reflects very badly on the whole of Yorkshire cricket. When we get to the bottom of all this, may I urge my hon. Friend to ensure that those who are responsible for this kind of language are sanctioned, and that the people who have described this language as “banter” also face sanctions?

Chris Philp: I agree with everything that my hon. Friend has said. That language is clearly not banter. Those who used it should face consequences, and those who tolerated it, condoned it and even covered it up and hid it should face sanctions as well.

Imran Hussain: Can I first join others in condemning the vile language directed at Azeem Rafiq and the blatant culture of racism that has been exposed? It is shocking that, even after all this, this House has requested a copy of the full report and been denied it. The language faced by Azeem was not friendly banter, as has rightly been pointed out. It was racism, plain and simple, and the failure of Yorkshire cricket to recognise it taking place under its nose is just the tip of the iceberg of a much bigger problem. That problem is the normalisation of racism in so many sports such as cricket and football. You only have to ask any young person in Bradford who has ever picked up a bat or a ball about the obstacles they face on a daily basis because of this normalisation. I have listened to the Minister, but the reality remains that we cannot tackle the racism present in many sports if we change only the boards and not the culture. What the Minister needs to do today is to commit to a top-to-bottom review of professional sporting bodies to directly challenge the normalisation of racism.

Chris Philp: I agree that the normalisation of racism is something that we all have to fight. Each and every one of us has a duty and an ability to do that. As far as cricket is concerned, as I have said, I have enormous confidence in Cindy Butts—a highly respected anti-racism campaigner—to lead the independent commission for equity in cricket and sort out the problems that evidently exist there. Across society more widely the Government  have a hate crime strategy, we have done a race disparity audit and we have a race disparity unit. We will shortly be bringing forward an online safety Bill, which is designed to clean up the sewer online where so much of that hatred is often spread.

Naseem Shah: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) for securing this question and I thank Azeem Rafiq for his bravery. Not only was he exposed to racism and suffered from that, but he was denied an inquiry, and only yesterday was it acknowledged that what he did was whistleblowing. Much of the racism he faced at Yorkshire county cricket club was blatant racism and Islamophobia, and he has said as much. I recognise that the Minister and other members of the Government have stood in solidarity with colleagues across party in challenging the racism in this specific case, and I welcome the appointment of my fellow Bradfordian Lord Kamlesh Patel, but it cannot be left to him to fix this culture on his own.
I appreciate that the essence of this debate is about cross-party unity, but the truth is that for two and a half years we have been waiting for a definition of Islamophobia. No Government advisers have been appointed in two and a half years and the definition provided by the all-party parliamentary group on British Muslims, which the Muslim community stood behind, has been denied by the Government. Given the collegiate nature of this debate, will the Minister and the Government meet with the all-party parliamentary group so that we can reach a definition of Islamophobia? Without that, how do we understand that Islamophobia is rooted in racism, and what do we do to address it?

Chris Philp: I thank the hon. Lady for her question. I repeat my admiration for Azeem Rafiq’s courage in standing up to the appalling racism he suffered at Yorkshire county cricket club. I understand that that is by no means an isolated example. Root and branch change is needed at that club; I hope that the recent appointment of Lord Patel of Bradford is an important first step, but it is only a first step. Root and branch change is needed. Across cricket more widely, the independent commission for equity in cricket, chaired by Cindy Butts, has that mission in mind.
On the more general question, of course we need to create a culture in this country where racism is fought at every step and every stage. That is why we have a race disparity unit. That is why we have a hate crime strategy. That is why we are bringing forward the online safety Bill. In relation to the hon. Lady’s particular question about the definition, the Minister for Equalities, my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Kemi Badenoch), is working on that. I will convey the question to my hon. Friend and ask her to make contact urgently with the hon. Lady to discuss that issue.

Robbie Moore: Yorkshire county cricket club is supposed to represent each and every person of our great county, but these reports show that it has failed our entire Yorkshire community and the whole sporting community. It is right that the board members at Yorkshire who turned a blind eye to racist accusations have resigned, but does my hon. Friend agree that the ECB must now take responsibility for neglecting racism in cricket and that individuals there must also consider their positions?

Chris Philp: I agree with my hon. Friend that the failings at Yorkshire county cricket club are deep and have been long lasting. Of the people responsible, I think some have resigned already, but there are others who, as the shadow Minister and I said earlier, should now consider their position and do the same. My colleague the sport Minister met the ECB last week to raise exactly those issues, to hold it to account and to make clear that the expectation of Parliament and the public is that it takes responsibility for fixing the problems that it has allowed to occur on its watch. We are scrutinising its actions. The public are watching and Parliament is watching; we now expect them to act.

Virendra Sharma: Let me first congratulate my dear hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) and thank him for securing this urgent question. We are talking about structural racism and institutional inequality in society. Does the Minister agree that community sports projects run in the community, which bring people of different faiths and backgrounds together, are key to breaking racism in sport? Will he agree to meet successful teams in my constituency to understand the challenges they face?

Chris Philp: The hon. Gentleman is quite right to point to grassroots sport as the place where everything starts and the place where culture is set. I think the person he should meet is the sport Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston); he is in Geneva today, but I will certainly pass on that request and I am certain he will readily agree.

Scott Benton: This appalling case follows several high-profile examples of racism in other sports this year. The efforts to address racism in football, for example, through taking the knee have sadly met with a mixed reaction from fans. Although it is clear that we need a new anti-racism strategy across all sports, it is important that that strategy brings everybody with it. What steps have the Government taken to develop such an initiative across all sports?

Chris Philp: In relation specifically to football, in response to what happened last summer, the scope of football banning orders was extended to cover not just racist abuse happening in football grounds, but racist abuse perpetrated by fans online. Quick and decisive action was taken there. The online safety Bill is designed to address racist abuse online more widely, and the hate crimes strategy and the race disparity unit are designed to fight racism in sport and across society as a whole.

Jamie Stone: I associate myself and my party with remarks already made in this place. Racism is absolutely unacceptable anywhere. In Scotland we have a useful expression, “We’re a’ Jock Tamson’s bairns,”—we are all John Thomson’s children—meaning that we are all the same. We are all human beings.
I served for 12 years in the Scottish Parliament. For a long time, sectarianism has been a scar on the face of Scottish sport, but I give credit where it is due: the Scottish Government have recognised that and are working hard to tackle it. Some would say perhaps not successfully, some would say successfully, but never mind—the intention  is there. May I recommend to Her Majesty’s Government that they talk to the Scottish Government about what has been done north of the border, as it may well help to stamp out the evil of racism in the rest of the UK?

Chris Philp: We always talk to Administrations around the whole United Kingdom, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that this Government’s commitment to stamping out racism in cricket, in sport and anywhere we find it is absolute.

Alex Davies-Jones: I too am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) for raising the important question of racism in cricket in the House. Just yesterday, I met Cricket Wales and heard about the work it is doing in my constituency with the brilliant Miskin Manor Cricket Club to tackle misogyny and inequality at grassroots level. Racism and discrimination in any form is utterly unacceptable, and it cannot be that cricket is allowed to continue as a sport for only the most privileged communities. I ask the Minister exactly what steps his Department will be taking to break that cycle and encourage true diversity in sport. We need deeds, not words.

Chris Philp: Diversity and inclusion run through the entire ethos of the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport’s interaction with sporting bodies and the way it funds sport, from grassroots levels, which the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) mentioned a moment ago, right up to the top. It touches every element of the way we fund and work with sport. On the question of cricket in particular, Cindy Butts’s independent commission for equity in cricket is designed to address exactly the questions the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) rightly just raised.

Marsha de Cordova: I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) on securing this important urgent question. I agree with the remarks that have already been made this afternoon. Racism in all its forms, whether in sport or society, is wrong and needs to be stamped out. We all saw what happened last summer, when the racist attacks on our black England football players took place, and the lack of leadership, as many would describe it, from the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister when they failed to condemn it. To tackle racism requires leadership. If the Minister is going to bring his words to life, he needs to commit today to implementing a proper race equality strategy that will seek to tackle institutional and structural racism across society, including in sport, the labour market and our education system.

Chris Philp: When we saw the racist abuse suffered by those footballers in the final of the European championships at Wembley back in the summer, there was universal condemnation of it. It was universal condemnation followed by action, in the form of the extension of those football banning orders to include online racist abuse, which previously was not covered and is a matter that will be further addressed in the Online Safety Bill in the very near future. On the wider questions, we had the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities give its initial report and the Government will be coming forward with a further plan in that area, which my colleague the Minister for Equalities will be leading.

Gareth Thomas: May I strongly associate myself with the praise for the courage of Azeem Rafiq, the condemnation of institutional racism at Yorkshire cricket club more generally and the concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah) about the lack of a Government-backed definition of Islamophobia? There are two other specific things the Minister should focus on. First, last year Sport England found a 14-point gap between the percentage of white British people participating in sport and of British Asians taking part in sport. So it would be good to know what the Minister is going to do to put a target in place to bring that gap down quickly. Secondly, members of Yorkshire cricket club were raising concerns about what was going on, but the governance structures at Yorkshire clearly did not allow those concerns to get to the very top and have an impact. There is, rightly, a campaign for fans to have a seat on the board of football clubs. Is it not time for consideration to be given to fans having a place on the board of cricket clubs as well?

Chris Philp: The question about encouraging participation is a good one. My colleague the sports Minister, who deals with this on a day-to-day basis, in his dealings with various representative sports bodies and in the way he constructs funding arrangements, is resolutely focused on increasing participation in sports across all backgrounds in this country, both ethnic and social; there are other metrics and dimensions besides just ethnicity. That is an important piece of work that he is taking forward. On representation on boards, that is exactly the kind of question Cindy Butts’s review will be addressing. I hope she is listening to today’s proceedings and will take that as an idea for her review to carry forward, because I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there were catastrophic failings of governance over many years at Yorkshire county cricket club. That is why it is right that the chairman resigned and if anyone is left from that regime, they should resign as well.

Rachel Hopkins: In my constituency, children are flourishing when playing local, grassroots, community cricket, through excellent programmes led by organisations such as Wicketz, which focuses on community cohesion. It is clear, however, that structural inequalities, particularly associated with race and class—as have been writ large by the issues and allegations at Yorkshire county cricket club—will place huge barriers in their way if they want to pursue their dreams and make it as professionals in cricket. What actions is the Minister taking to stamp out discrimination, in all its forms, within cricket and sport in the UK?

Chris Philp: As I set out already, the independent commission for equity in cricket, chaired by a highly respected anti-racism campaigner, is going into exactly those issues and I am sure it will be making concrete recommendations, which the ECB and the Government will be taking very seriously. In addition, the Equality and Human Rights Commission is asking questions, as I have said. If the ECB, in its work, does not do what this House expects, the Government are prepared to act.

Clive Efford: More than 50 years ago, Asian cricketers set up their own leagues and tournaments in Yorkshire because they were not getting the recognition in the sport that they deserved for their talent, and they  certainly were not being picked up by the head of the sport in their county, which is Yorkshire cricket club. This problem has existed in broad daylight for generations and the ECB has done precious little to deal with it. If we are going to deal with this issue, we cannot look only at Yorkshire cricket club; we need to look beyond it and talk to people about what has been going on in Yorkshire for a very long time—perhaps even look beyond Yorkshire and at other areas where this sort of institutional racism takes place. We need a root-and-branch investigation into what has been going on.

Chris Philp: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct, and that is precisely what the Independent Commission for Equity in Cricket, chaired by Cindy Butts, is going to be doing. It will be asking exactly those questions that he just posed, not just of Yorkshire county cricket club, which clearly has the most appalling, very long-standing problems—from what he said, it sounds as though they are multi-decade—but across cricket more widely. It is essential that that work happens. Let me just take this opportunity to say to anyone in cricket—Members of Parliament, members of the public, players, coaching staff or parents—who has experienced the kind of appalling and unacceptable racism we have heard about to make sure that they give evidence to this independent commission, so that their voice is heard, their story is heard and action can be taken.

Jim Shannon: I, too, thank the Minister for his helpful response. Does he agree that the sport of cricket embodies the very sense of multiculturalism and that those who are caught in racist-speak or in racist acts should not have the privilege to don the whites or even to watch the wonderful play? What steps can and will he take not just to reduce racism but to implement a zero tolerance policy on it?

Chris Philp: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that where players are found to have committed acts of racism, they should suffer consequences; a mere slap on the wrist or admonishment is clearly not enough. In that spirit, I understand that the ECB has already suspended from eligibility for England selection one of the players at Yorkshire county cricket club who was guilty of racially abusing Azeem Rafiq. I hope that county cricket clubs, the ECB, cricket clubs more generally and sporting clubs more generally take exactly that kind of action whenever they find examples of this kind of unacceptable behaviour. Let us say as a House today that that is what we expect them to do.

Jo Stevens: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. May I ask your advice, as I believe the Minister has just inadvertently misled the House on two occasions in his responses to questions? In July, the Prime Minister accepted Labour’s request to extend football banning orders to online racist abuse. I raised the fact that nothing had been done about that in oral questions to the new Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport on 16 September. She was not able to answer the question and said that she would write to me. She has actually done so today, some two months on, saying, in effect, that nothing has been done yet because it will require primary legislation to extend football banning orders. So these orders are clearly not in force and action has not been taken. I wonder whether you might advise me as to how the record could be corrected.

Chris Philp: Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the shadow Secretary of State for her point of order. As I said at the beginning, I am covering today’s debate for the sports Minister, and the hon. Lady is quite right to say that it is a commitment—a clear and affirmed one. The Department is currently working on ways to implement it as quickly as possible. I will make sure that my colleagues the sports Minister and the Secretary of State deliver this commitment as expeditiously as they possibly can.

Nigel Evans: Well, that was speedily done, was it not? Thank you very much, Minister, for responding to the urgent question today. May I ask Members who are leaving to do so in a covid-friendly way? Appropriately enough, we are moving on to a statement by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care on the covid-19 update.

Covid-19 Update

Sajid Javid: With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the further steps we are taking to keep this country safe from covid-19.
We head into the winter months in a much stronger position than last year. Of all the reasons for this progress, the greatest is unquestionably our vaccination programme. Across the UK, the overwhelming majority of us have made the positive choice to accept the offer of vaccines against covid-19. Almost eight in every 10 people over the age of 12 have chosen to be double jabbed, and more than 10 million people have now received their boosters or third jabs. I am grateful to colleagues from all parties for their steadfast support for our national vaccination programme.
Despite the fantastic rates of uptake, we must all keep doing our bit to encourage eligible people to top up their defences and protect themselves this winter. I understand that vaccination can, of course, be an emotive issue. Most of us have taken this step to protect ourselves, our families and our country. Sadly, we have all seen how covid can devastate lives, but we have also seen how jabs can save lives and keep people out of hospital.
Our collective efforts have built a vast wall of defence for the British people, helping us to move towards the more normal way of life that we have all been longing for. The efforts of the British public have been phenomenal, and those working in health and social care have been the very best of us. Not only have they saved lives and kept people safe through their incredible work but they have done the same by choosing to get vaccinated. I thank NHS trusts and primary care networks for all the support and encouragement they have given to their staff to take up the vaccine. The latest figures show that 90% of NHS staff have received at least two doses of the covid-19 vaccine, although in some trusts the figure is closer to 80%.
Although our health and social care colleagues are a cross-section of the nation at large, there is no denying that they carry a unique responsibility. They have that responsibility because they are in close contact with some of the most vulnerable people in our society—people we know are more likely to suffer serious health consequences if they get covid-19. Whether it is in our care homes, our hospitals or any other health or care setting, the first duty of everyone working in health and social care is to avoid preventable harm to the people they care for. Not only that, but they have a responsibility to do all they can to keep each other safe.
Those twin responsibilities—to patients and to each other—underline, once again, why a job in health or care is a job like no other, so it cannot be business as usual when it comes to vaccination. That is why, from the very beginning of our national vaccination programme, we put health and care colleagues at the front of the line for covid jabs, and it is why we have run two consultations to explore some of the other things that we might need to do.
The first consultation looked at whether we should require people who work in care homes to be vaccinated—what is called the condition for deployment. After careful consideration, we made vaccination against covid-19 a  condition for deployment in care homes from 11 November. Since we announced that in Parliament, the number of people working in care homes who have not had at least one dose has fallen from 88,000 to just 32,000 at the start of last month.
Our second consultation looked at whether we should extend the vaccination requirement to health and other social care settings, including NHS hospitals and independent healthcare providers. Our six-week consultation received more than 34,000 responses and, of course, covered a broad range of views. Support for making vaccination a condition for deployment was tempered with concern that, if we went ahead with that condition, some people might choose to leave their posts. I have carefully considered the responses and evidence and have concluded that the scales clearly tip to one side. The weight of the data shows that our vaccinations have kept people safe and saved lives, and that that is especially true for vulnerable people in health and care settings.
I am mindful of not only our need to protect human life but our imperative to protect the NHS and those services on which we all rely. Having considered the consultation responses and the advice of my officials and of NHS leaders, including the chief executive of the NHS, I have concluded that all those who work in the NHS and social care will have to be vaccinated. We must avoid preventable harm and protect patients in the NHS, colleagues in the NHS and, of course, the NHS itself. Only those colleagues who can show that they are fully vaccinated against covid-19 will be employed or engaged in the relevant settings. There will be two key exemptions: one for those who do not have face-to-face contact with patients and a second for those who are medically exempt. The requirements will apply across the health and wider social care settings that are regulated by the Care Quality Commission.
We are not the only country to take such steps: there are similar policies for specific workers in other countries, including the United States, France and Italy. We also consulted on flu vaccines but, having considered views that we should focus on covid-19, we will not introduce any requirement to have flu jabs at this stage, although we will keep the matter under review.
Of course, these decisions are not mine alone: as with other nationally significant covid legislation, Parliament will have its say and we intend to publish an impact assessment before any vote. We plan to implement the policy through the powers in the Health and Social Care Act 2008, which requires registered persons to ensure the provision of safe care and treatment. I will shortly introduce to the House a draft statutory instrument to amend the regulations, just as we did in respect of care homes.
This decision does not mean that I do not recognise concerns about workforce pressures this winter and, indeed, beyond as a result of some people perhaps choosing to leave their job because of the decision we have taken. Of course I recognise that. It is with that in mind that we have chosen not to bring the condition into force until 12 weeks after parliamentary approval, thereby allowing time for remaining colleagues to make the positive choice to protect themselves and those around them, and time for workforce planning. Subject to parliamentary approval, we intend to start the enforcement of the condition on 1 April.
We will continue to work closely across the NHS to manage workforce pressures. More than that, we will continue to support and encourage those who are yet to get the vaccines to do so. At every point in our programme we have made jabs easily accessible and worked with all communities to build trust and boost uptake. That vital work will continue, including through engagement with the communities where uptake is the lowest; through one-to-one conversations with all unvaccinated staff in the NHS; and through the use of our national vaccination programme capacity, with walk-in centres and pop-up centres, to make it as easy as possible to get the jab.
Let me be clear: no one working in the NHS or in care who is currently unvaccinated should be scapegoated, singled out or shamed. That would be totally unacceptable. This is about supporting them to make a positive choice to protect vulnerable people, protect their colleagues and, of course, protect themselves. The chief executive of the NHS will write to all NHS trusts today to underline just how vital the vaccination efforts are.
I am sure the whole House will want to join me in paying tribute to the heroic responses across health and care. Those who work in health and care have been the very best of us in the most difficult of days. Care, compassion and conscience continue to be their watchwords, and I know they will want to do the right thing. Today’s decision is about doing right by them and by everyone who uses the NHS, so that we protect patients in the NHS, protect colleagues in the NHS and protect the NHS itself. I commend this statement to the House.

Jon Ashworth: I thank the Secretary of State for, as always, timely advance sight of the statement.
Vaccination saves lives—it is the best protection against this deadly disease and helps to cut transmission—and we of course want to see NHS staff vaccinated. As has been pointed out many times before, there are already categories of staff for whom a hepatitis vaccination is expected. We will look carefully at the regulations and the equality impact assessment, but I urge the Secretary of State to proceed with caution, because the NHS is already under the most intense pressure this winter; waiting lists are close to 6 million; there are more than 90,000 vacancies across the NHS; and the Chancellor failed to allocate in his Budget funding for training budgets to train the medics we need for the future. There will be anxiety at trust level that a policy, however laudable in principle, could exacerbate some of these chronic understaffing problems. We simply cannot afford to lose thousands of NHS staff overnight.
We do welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has listened to representations from organisations such as NHS Providers and others about delaying the implementation of this until after the winter; we welcome that. None the less, there are still organisations, such as the British Medical Association, that have raised concerns about the practicalities of implementing this policy. Helen Stokes-Lampard of the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges has said that mandatory vaccination is neither “necessary” nor “proportionate”. Will he agree to meet the royal colleges, the BMA, and the relevant trade unions to agree a framework for how this policy will be implemented? Will he outline to the House what success looks like for this policy? Some of the 10% of  NHS staff who are not vaccinated include those with medical exemptions, those who are on long-term sick, and those who could not get the vaccine first time round because they were ill with covid. Will he tell the House: what is the actual number of NHS staff who should be vaccinated, but who have not had the vaccine? What is the actual number? In other words, what then does he consider a success? What does full vaccination across the NHS look like for him? Is it 94%, 95%, or 96%? What are we aiming for here? What is his target?
The aim of this policy is presumably to limit those with covid coming into contact with patients, but one can still catch and transmit covid post vaccine, so will the testing regime that is in place for NHS staff—I think it is twice a week at the moment—increase in frequency? Furthermore, thousands of visitors go onto the NHS estate every week, so will visitors to hospitals be asked whether they have had the vaccine or have proof of a negative test?
What analysis has the Secretary of State done of those who are vaccine hesitant in the NHS workforce? What targeted support has he put in place to persuade take-up among those groups? He refers to trusts where take-up is around 80%, so what specific support has he put in place to help those trusts drive up vaccination rates? We know from society more generally that there has been hesitancy, for example, among women who are pregnant and who want to have a baby. That has meant that a significant proportion of those in hospital with covid are unvaccinated pregnant women. A large proportion of the NHS staff workforce are women of a similar age, so is this one of the issues as to why there is hesitancy in certain pockets across the NHS? Will he therefore look at a large-scale campaign to reassure pregnant women of the safety of the vaccine and look at launching an information hub, perhaps a dedicated phoneline, to offer clear advice to women and their partners who might have concerns?
Finally, on vaccination more generally, I do not want to see—I do not think that anyone across this House wants to see—anymore lockdowns imposed on cities such as my own in Leicester, or across Greater Manchester, or Bradford, but in many of these areas, vaccination rates are not good enough. Leicester has a vaccination rate of just around 61%, Bradford 63%, Bolton 69%, and Bury 71%. Generally, on children’s vaccinations, we are only at 28%. On the boosters, there are still around 6 million people eligible for a booster who have not yet had one. The Government’s own analysis shows that people over 70 who are dying from covid or hospitalised should have had a booster, but have had only two jabs.
With Christmas coming, which will mean more mixing indoors at a time when infection rates are still high—one in 50—we are facing six crucial weeks. What more support will the Secretary of State offer now to local communities, such as Leicester, Bolton, Bury and Bradford, to drive up vaccination rates, because nobody wants to see those local lockdowns again.

Sajid Javid: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his approach to this matter and to issues around vaccination in general. There is no doubt that the general consensus in this House, across parties, has played a vital role in  building confidence in vaccines among our citizens, and, once again, I thank him and his party for their approach to vaccination.
The right hon. Gentleman has raised a number of questions. He suggested caution in this approach and he was right to do so. I hope that, from what I have already shared with the House today and what I will continue to share, he will feel that we are taking that cautious approach. For example, if Parliament supports this move, there will be a grace period so that those in the NHS and social care who have not yet chosen to take any vaccine will have plenty of time to do so.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about meeting healthcare leaders. He will not be surprised to hear that, probably like him, I meet healthcare leaders all the time and will continue to do so. I am more than ready to listen to them. Following the consultation that we have had on this so far, we would like to know what further suggestions they have, especially around implementation and take-up.
The right hon. Gentleman specifically asked me about the NHS take-up. The take-up throughout the NHS in England is 93% for the first dose and 90% for two doses, which leaves, I think, 103,000 people in the NHS who are unvaccinated—in other words, they do not have even one jab. As he will understand, it is hard to know what portion of that number will take up the offer of vaccination. If we look at what has happened in care homes since that policy was announced, we can see that there was a significant fall in the equivalent number, and I think that we can certainly expect that here, but, as he has suggested and as came through very clearly to the consultation, it is about making sure that people are encouraged to take a positive choice. From what I said earlier, I cannot be clearer that no one should scapegoat or single out anyone in the NHS or in social care who has, at this point, for whatever reason, chosen not to get vaccinated. This is all about working with them positively, making sure that they have the information that they need. In answer to his question of what more will be done to help people make that positive choice, I say that, as well as information, one-to-one meetings will be offered to everyone who is unvaccinated, if that is what they want. They will have the opportunity to meet clinicians and others to allay any concerns they may have. That includes, of course, those who are pregnant or thinking of one day becoming pregnant. The right hon. Gentleman was right to raise that, too.
Lastly, on the vaccination programme overall, I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that, as a country, we have done remarkably well. Almost eight out of 10 people over the age of 12 are double vaccinated. That is one of the best vaccination rates in the world, but, as he and others have said, we still need to be working hard to do better. There are still too many people who have not taken up an original offer of a vaccine. We also need to make sure that, for those who are eligible for a booster shot, it is made as easy as possible for them. Some of the recent changes to the booster booking system have led to a phenomenal increase in booster shots—more than 10 million throughout the UK—and the number is growing all the time.

Jeremy Hunt: This is a difficult decision, but it is the right decision, and I congratulate the Health and Social Care Secretary on  biting the bullet on this. I congratulate his predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock), on laying the foundations of the vaccination programme that has made it possible.
When we have a disease that can be transmitted asymptomatically, all of us have a responsibility to protect the most vulnerable people, and no one more so than doctors and nurses. I do not know of a single doctor or nurse who do not want to be double or triple jabbed in order to make sure that they are protecting their own patients. Reducing the number of nosocomial infections is one of the big learning points from this pandemic going forward, so this is the right thing to do.,
Exactly the same arguments for the covid vaccine apply also to the flu vaccine. I note that, today, the Health Secretary has not made an announcement about the flu vaccine. Can I encourage him to do so? I wanted to vaccinate NHS staff for flu much more comprehensively than was happening. I think my successor wanted to do it as well. This needs to happen for exactly the same reasons. There is asymptomatic transmission of flu just as there is asymptomatic transmission of covid. I encourage my right hon. Friend to look at that and I would be interested to hear what his plans are on that front.

Sajid Javid: I thank my right hon. Friend for his support for today’s announcement. I know that he speaks with huge experience, that he has rightly focused for years on the importance of patient safety, and that he will also welcome this as a patient-safety measure. On his particular question around flu, we did consider that carefully. As he knows, we did consult on it. We looked at the response to the consultation and, after consideration, we were not convinced that we should go ahead with flu at this stage, but the option remains open.

Tony Lloyd: I am guardedly sympathetic to the direction of travel in which the Secretary of State is going, but this obviously could lead to specific skills shortages in different parts of the health service. Can he give us a guarantee that this will be monitored at a granular level, so that each hon. Member can be certain that we do not find out that our own hospitals have developed those skills shortages in vital services?

Sajid Javid: The hon. Gentleman is right to raise that point. It was a concern in making the decision, and I have set out how I have taken that into account. However, I assure him that the issue will be monitored on a day-by-day basis by our colleagues in NHS England and of course the Department itself, and that whatever workforce planning is necessary will be done.

Matthew Hancock: I warmly welcome the Secretary of State’s decision and the cross-party consensus behind it. Medicine is based on science and the vaccine is the best of science, and we should use all the science and tools at our disposal to keep people safe. That is the justification for this policy. I support the extension of the decision in due course to flu. I am glad that the Secretary of State is keeping that option open, and urge him to continue to push on that as soon as is practicable.
May I invite my right hon. Friend to join me in saying that, given that there is cross-party consensus and that the announcement has now been made, this is clearly  going to happen; and that all those working in the NHS, including those who have so far been hesitant, should therefore come forward as soon as possible to get the vaccines? They are going to have to get them, so better to get them sooner rather than later.

Sajid Javid: I agree wholeheartedly. May I take this opportunity to thank my right hon. Friend again for the work that he has done in Government, and particularly in this Department in laying the foundations of our successful vaccination programme? Without those foundations, we would not have been able to take this positive step today. He is right to point to the fact that vaccines work, and that they are safe and effective. Public Health England estimates that at least 230,000 hospitalisations and more than 100,000 deaths have been prevented by the vaccines. He is also right to say that now that the Government have made our decision, subject to the will of Parliament, this will happen; and that there is already an opportunity from this moment for people to make the positive choice. In doing so, we will help those people in every way that we can.

Clive Efford: I welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement, but if this is about minimising transmission, surely it follows that we should be reviewing the guidance on facial protection and FFP3 masks. Will he be following the recommendations of the royal colleges and trade unions that frontline staff in care homes and the NHS should be issued with FFP3 masks?

Sajid Javid: The hon. Gentleman will know that masks play an important role in vulnerable settings in healthcare and social care already. He points to a suggestion by some that the requirements regarding the type of masks should be changed. I reassure him that we keep this issue under review at all times, and if such a change were necessary, we would support it.

Edward Leigh: It is obvious that the booster jab is essential to protect the very vulnerable. I have an elderly family member who is 90 years old and completely bedbound. He lives at home, and cannot get out of the flat and down the steps, and he has been waiting for weeks for his booster jab. He said to me on Sunday, “Where is my booster jab?”. I suspect that across the country it is quite inconvenient to get out to very elderly people who are living at home—not in care homes, but in their own home. These people are being looked after all day by care workers, coming in and out. Will the Secretary of State now give an instruction to health authorities, GPs and district nurses to get out and get the booster jabs into these very old and vulnerable people?

Sajid Javid: What my right hon. Friend has just said deeply concerns me. Anyone who is 90 years old and homebound should have been contacted—certainly at that age. I am assuming that it has been at least six months since the individual’s second jab. On that basis, he should have been contacted and visited by his GP. First, I would like more details about that particular case, if my right hon. Friend will supply them. I would want then to ensure that there are no other instances like that, because someone at that age who is homebound should certainly already have received their booster jab.

Kirsten Oswald: I thank the Secretary of State for setting out his thinking today. The Government said in the Budget that they planned to invest responsibly. Does he believe that it was responsible to cancel a multimillion-pound contract to supply a covid vaccine that phase 3 trials show may be more effective than the Oxford vaccine, threatening hundreds of jobs in Livingston for no apparent good reason? Will he consider rethinking that unfortunate decision?

Sajid Javid: I know the case to which the hon. Lady is referring. We are clear in our decision, which was made for all the right reasons. I hope that she will understand that I am not at liberty at this point to share those reasons, due to commercial and legal sensitivities, but I assure her that there is absolutely no point in revisiting that decision.

Mark Harper: I welcome what the Secretary of State has said about his proposed method of dealing with this issue in Parliament, and his confirmation that he is going to publish an impact assessment ahead of the decision. That, of course, was not what happened when we voted on the care home vaccination issue, for which, to be fair to him, he was not responsible; the way in which that decision was conducted was an abuse of this House, which was asked to vote on it.
The Secretary of State has just confirmed that of the 40,000 care home staff who the Government estimated were going to leave the care home sector because they had not been vaccinated, 32,000 of them—two days away from the deadline—remain unvaccinated. That is a significant number. When he publishes all the information before we make a decision, will he ensure that as well as the impact assessment he includes a plan to deal with what sounds like it will be something like tens of thousands of NHS staff, who, if the care home workforce are any precedent, are going to end up leaving the national health service? It may be the right decision, but we must have a plan to deal with it. Not having had a plan for the care home sector is causing enormous pressure not just on the care home sector, but on the NHS. I want to ensure that when Members are asked to make a decision, we have all the information at our disposal so that we can make the best possible decision in all the circumstances.

Sajid Javid: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that parliamentary procedure is vital. As well as publishing the impact assessment before a vote, I can share with the House that we will be publishing an impact statement today. That will be followed by the impact assessment, later. He mentioned the figure of 32,000. That is the latest published number, from the end of last month. Although it has only been a few days since then, the situation is currently quite fast moving because the number might include a number of people—perhaps in their thousands—who are medically exempt but about whom the Care Quality Commission has not yet been informed. He has pointed to the need for the Government to share our thinking or that of the NHS on workforce planning with respect to this new measure. We will set out more details.

Daisy Cooper: A number of care home owners have said that the damage has already started to be done, and that some of their carers are leaving either their jobs or the sector entirely. I welcome  the Secretary of State’s statement that an impact assessment will be forthcoming, and look forward to seeing the impact statement later today. In response to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd), the Secretary of State also mentioned that the Department is monitoring the issue on a “day-by-day basis”. I worry that an impact statement might be too late if we have to wait two or three months for a vote. Will he commit to publishing the data that he is looking at day by day, so that Members of the House can see in real time whether the policy is going to have an impact on the workforce situation in the NHS and care homes?

Sajid Javid: We will be publishing the impact statement today.

Tim Loughton: Although I want everybody to be vaccinated, I do not support mandatory medical interventions, and I worry about the impact on the already high vacancy rate in the workforce. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State must have done some risk assessments, so can he tell me this? As previously asked, how many of the 10% who are un-jabbed does he assess will be subject to medical exemptions? What calculations has he made of the likely job losses overall? When will he publish a list of exactly what personnel are involved? Will it involve cleaners, for example, who do not have medical engagement with patients but are certainly in proximity to them? When will he publish the evidence and the data on the number of patients who have been infected with covid by unvaccinated staff while in hospital?

Sajid Javid: I hope my hon. Friend appreciates that there were a lot of questions. The impact statement will be published today, and the impact assessment will be published before he and other Members are asked to vote. Those documents will help to answer their questions. I also draw his attention to the experience thus far of the condition of deployment measure that we took in a similar way with care homes, and how dramatically the numbers were cut from the point of announcement.

Karin Smyth: Of course NHS and care staff should all be vaccinated—that is what we expect for our loved ones—and of course they should all be wearing masks. The Prime Minister parading around a hospital yesterday without a mask was a disgrace, and I hope that the Health Secretary is talking to him about that.
I support the questions that other hon. Members have asked about more detail in the impact assessments, because I want to know whether those 10% of un-jabbed staff are in Bristol, or whether the figure in Bristol is 20%, 30% or 2%. If the Health Secretary knows that information, I, as a Member of Parliament for Bristol, should also know it. If all staff and associated people in healthcare settings are to be vaccinated, will there be a covid passport for people to visit hospital and care settings?

Sajid Javid: I gently say to the hon. Lady that she really should not try to play politics with the story that she is perpetuating about the Prime Minister on a hospital visit yesterday. As the hospital trust said, and as I am sure she knows, the Prime Minister and his team followed all the rules that they were required to follow, whether they were about face masks or otherwise, in  that hospital. Something tells me that she knows that, but sadly she has decided that she wants to play politics with such an important issue.
As for information on vaccination rates in Bristol, the hon. Lady knows that every region of England has a director of public health. She probably knows who hers is, and they will be able to supply a lot of information. If she is having any difficulty getting that information, I will certainly help her in any way that I can.

Andrew Murrison: I declare my interest as a vaccinator. I support the Government’s position, but will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State tell us what assessment he has made of the risk of transmission of coronavirus from an apparently healthy person to a vulnerable person? As with hepatitis B, the only justification for the measure must be that there is a significant risk of transmission.
Furthermore, will he reassess his position on flu following the comments of his two predecessors, which I support? Will he ensure that we do nothing to trespass on the rights of individuals unless it is absolutely essential to keep vulnerable people safe? Finally, will he say why he has gone for 1 April? If this has to be done, it is better to do it quickly. By the spring, we will clearly be past the winter pressures that we are all concerned about.

Sajid Javid: I thank my right hon. Friend for his support. On the assessments that we have done, I have shared some information with the House, and there will be an impact statement followed by an impact assessment that will give him more information. It may be helpful for him to know that studies already in the public domain show that against the delta variant, the AstraZeneca vaccine is 65% effective and the Pfizer vaccine is 85% effective in preventing infection. The fewer people who are infected in these settings, the less spread there will be.
I think I have set out the Government’s thinking on flu, but it remains under review. There are many reasons why we have focused on the 1 April date, but the main one is to give those in the NHS who have not yet had a single jab—there are 100,000 of them—to make the positive decision to get vaccinated.

Rachael Maskell: In York, vaccination rates are high at 87%, but transmission rates of covid are also extremely high, and transmission is happening in the community. As a result, directors of public health such as my own are absolutely despairing that the Secretary of State and others in the Department are not listening to public health experts who are asking for the tools to be restored to manage the virus. That is about moving contact tracing immediately into local authorities, where they got on top of the virus and locked it down. It is also about ensuring that greater public health measures are taken—hands, face, space needs restoring in all settings.

Sajid Javid: The hon. Lady is right to point to the high vaccination rates in York, and everyone involved is to be commended. When it comes to other measures that may or may not be taken, I think the plan A approach that the Government set out is the right one. There may be reasons to take a slightly different approach in certain regional areas, and that is also possible with the right evidence. This is something that we always keep under review.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Secretary of State for his clear commitment and for the regular updates that we get in the House. Can he provide an assessment of the availability of the new covid drug molnupiravir? If people get that pill within five days of symptoms, hospitalisation and death rates are cut by 50%. Will the drug be available across the whole United Kingdom, and will the vulnerable classification include the diabetic and the immunosuppressed?

Sajid Javid: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the antiviral drug that he refers to has been approved by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency. We do have that drug, and since the point of approval last week we have already started deploying it in certain settings across the United Kingdom. We have put an order in for another antiviral, which has had very successful trial outcomes, but it has not received any final approval. If the MHRA independently decides to approve it—of course, that is a decision for the MHRA—the country will be in the fortunate position of having procured that drug, too.

Tim Farron: One of the major objectives behind the successful vaccination programme is obviously to reduce infections, reduce hospitalisations and allow health professionals to focus on other, even more dangerous conditions, including cancer. The Secretary of State will be aware that in 2020, there were 35,000 missed cancer diagnoses. The London School of Economics study shows some 60,000 potential years of life being lost to cancer as a consequence of covid, and it is estimated that the NHS’s diagnostic and treatment services will have to work at 120% capacity for two solid years just to get back to March 2020 levels.
I suspect that the Secretary of State was as disappointed as I was that there was nothing in the Budget to help us to catch up with cancer. Will he follow the Government’s good example on the vaccine roll-out and adopt the same relentless focus on catching up with cancer, with targeted resources and leadership? Will he agree to meet clinicians and those involved in the cross-party Catch Up With Cancer campaign so we can work together to save those tens of thousands of lives, which will otherwise be unnecessarily lost?

Sajid Javid: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise the importance of cancer. For all the reasons he set out and more, it has remained an absolute priority of the Government and the NHS throughout the pandemic, despite the huge pressure that the NHS was under. Sadly, he is also right—I have spoken about this, just as he has—that many thousands of people went undiagnosed because they were asked to stay away from the NHS to protect it. We all understand why that happened, but sadly it had an unintended consequence. He is not right, though, to suggest that there was nothing in the Budget or the accompanying spending round to help with that problem. I draw his attention, for example, to the billions of investment in the new community diagnostic centres. There will be more than 100 across England, which will mean it will be much easier and quicker for GPs or others to refer people with suspected cancer for diagnosis. There are other examples, but I hope he is reassured that this remains an absolute priority.

Nigel Evans: I thank the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care for his statement today and for responding to questions for 40 minutes.

Points of Order

Diana R. Johnson: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, you will be aware of the importance across the country, not least in the north of England, of the long-awaited integrated rail plan. In Hull, we await news on the Government’s levelling-up promises on rail electrification and the eastern leg of HS2, but recent reports suggest that the plan may be published this week, on 11 November. In Transport questions on 4 November, the Minister of State, Department for Transport, the hon. Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson), said:
“I am delighted to say that the integrated rail plan is not just coming soon—it is now coming very soon.”—[Official Report, 4 November 2021; Vol. 702, c. 1035.]
This evening, the House goes into recess until next Monday. Mr Speaker has repeatedly reminded Ministers of the need to make important policy announcements to this House first. I therefore ask whether Mr Speaker has received notice of any intention by Ministers to make a statement in the House regarding the integrated rail plan and whether Mr Speaker has sought any assurances that such an important statement will not be published while the House is not sitting.

Nigel Evans: I thank the right hon. Lady for her point of order and notice of it. I certainly have not been given any indication that any statements will be made, other than the one we have just had, but she has made her point very well, and Mr Speaker has made his views clearly known. Whenever that report is published, I hope there will be ample time for Parliament first to question Ministers on its contents.

Chris Bryant: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, you may not be aware, but as I understand it, the Government told the lobby this morning—but obviously not the House, as yet—that they intend, further to yesterday’s debate and last week’s proceedings, to table a motion, rescinding the decision to set up the special committee and approving the third report of the Select Committee on Standards on the conduct of Mr Owen Paterson, for debate some time next week. Have you had any notice that that is the Government’s intention, or of what day they intend to do that? Obviously we will not have a business statement this week. Is there any suggestion as to whether there will be a business of the House motion to enable that to happen, or how they are intending to do it?
If I may, I make a brief announcement from the Standards Committee, which might be helpful to the House. As part of our review of the code of conduct and its operation, we have decided today to commission a senior judicial figure to advise us on possible changes to the process. We have already taken advice today from Sir Stephen Irwin, who is chair of the Independent Expert Panel. We believe that our present practices guarantee a fair hearing, but we will always consider suggestions for improvements. I hope that is helpful for the House.

Mark Harper: Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, I think it helpful, given that this issue is best done on a cross-party basis, to say, first, that I support and welcome what the  Chair of the Standards Committee has just said about his Committee’s procedures. On the first matter he raised, Ministers in the debate yesterday gave an indication that they were not minded to deal with the issues that arose last week. So I deprecate the fact that again these things have been announced outside the House; they should be announced in the House.
We do not have a business statement this week. Notwithstanding that, if the Government intend to bring forward a motion next week to deal with the two matters—to enable the House to take a decision on the Standards Committee report, which is important, and to unpick the committee that should not exist and which the Chair no longer wishes to chair—that is welcome, but it should have been announced in the House in the usual way. I hope that Ministers are able to furnish Members, perhaps by way of written information, before we come back next week with the detail of how they wish to proceed. I think that would be welcomed by both sides of the House.

Nigel Evans: I am grateful to Mr Bryant for his point of order and to Mr Harper for the follow-up point of order. I thank Mr Bryant for his notification. I am not privy to the lobby briefings that take place, but there has been a lot of speculation. If the Government are taking this course of action next week, then you, as Chair of the Committee, need to be given information as quickly as possible. It would be nice if that were the case. There does seem to be a bit of a theme, which is not appropriate, because Parliament needs the opportunity to hear that news first. If the process is going to take the course that it does, it is a shame that it could not have been done a lot earlier. I am also grateful for the comments he has made on the action that his Committee will take, because that is the right process. It should not hang on any individual case, as was clearly happening in this particular instance.

Bill Presented

Commercial Rent (Coronavirus) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Paul Scully, supported by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Michael Gove, Secretary Dominic Raab, Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng, Secretary Nadine Dorries, Secretary Sajid Javid and Secretary George Eustice, presented a Bill to make provision enabling relief from payment of certain rent debts under business tenancies adversely affected by coronavirus to be available through arbitration; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 189) with explanatory notes (Bill 189-EN).

Recognition of Armenian Genocide

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Tim Loughton: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require Her Majesty’s Government formally to recognise the Armenian genocide of 1915-23; and for connected purposes.
I declare an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for Armenia. Many people might not be able to identify Armenia on a map or have any knowledge of atrocities that happened over a century ago, but that is no reason for us not to consider, to remember and to seek to remediate a particularly dark chapter in human history, which has been acknowledged by His Holiness Pope Francis as the first genocide of the 20th century.
The Armenian genocide was the systematic and systemic mass murder of between 1 million and 1.5 million ethnic Armenians in the Ottoman empire, primarily in the years of the first world war between 1915 and 1916 and extending as far as 1923, though large-scale massacres at the hands of the Ottomans go back to the 1890s and 1909. Following the Ottoman invasion of Russian and Persian territory during world war one, and to deter Armenian independence, Ottoman paramilitaries massacred local Armenians and plans were formulated for mass deportation.
In 1915, the Ottoman authorities arrested and deported hundreds of Armenian intellectuals and leaders from Constantinople. Subsequently, on the orders of Talaat Pasha, an estimated 800,000 to 1.2 million Armenian women, children and elderly or infirm people were sent on death marches leading to the Syrian desert in 1915 and 1916. Driven forward by paramilitary escorts, the deportees were deprived of food and water and subjected to robbery, rape and massacres. In the Syrian desert, the survivors were dispersed into concentration camps.
In 1916, another wave of massacres was ordered, leaving about 200,000 deportees alive by the end of 1916. Around 100,000 to 200,000 Armenian women and children were forcibly converted to Islam and integrated into Muslim households. Massacres and ethnic cleansing of Armenian survivors were carried out by the Turkish nationalist movement during the Turkish war of independence after the first world war. The Armenian genocide resulted in the destruction of more than two millennia of Armenian civilization in eastern Anatolia.
We knew about these atrocities at the time. The British Government commissioned a parliamentary blue book in 1916 to document the Armenian genocide. It was compiled by Viscount Bryce and the historian, Arnold Toynbee. I read the Hansard of the debates in the Lords at the time, and in particular the speeches of the then Archbishop of Canterbury, Randall Davidson, a great champion of the Armenian people. He spoke of
“appalling stories of wholesale massacre, of expulsion of great populations from their homes under conditions which could only be described as in most cases slowly dragged-out massacre…on a scale so vast as is scarcely credible in our own time or, indeed, in any time.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 17 December 1919; Vol. 38, c. 280.]
He recounted details of women and girls thrown off barges on the River Tigris to drown, children burned alive in concentration camps and hundreds of thousands  of men uprooted and forced on long marches to be murdered if they did not expire on route. He concluded:
“After all the distractions which the war has brought into the mind of men all over the world in contemplating contemporary history, is it conceivable that we are going to allow these facts to be forgotten; or, if we do not allow them to be forgotten, that we are going to allow conditions to arise again during which their repetition can be possible? That seems to me to be a question which ought to be, and must be, asked at once.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 17 December 1919; Vol. 38, c. 285.]
Hear, hear to that, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is why the issue is still so important today.
Part of the problem is that the term “genocide” was not in use then and therefore not applied to massacres such as this back in 1916, and it did not have the international resonance that it does today. The word “genocide” was first coined by the Polish lawyer Raphael Lemkin in 1944. It was first recognised as a crime under international law in 1946 by the UN General Assembly and codified as an independent crime in the 1948 convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide, which came into effect in 1951. From that flow all the subsequent international cases on genocide tried in the international court, which includes retrospectively—that is an important point—the Jewish holocaust.
The convention and subsequent UN resolutions recognise that genocide has taken place at all times in human history and that there were prosecutions for the crime even before the term was invented. To date, the convention has been ratified by 149 states, including the UK in 1970, strengthening our country’s global prestige for standing up for human rights and justice.
We know about the Jewish holocaust as a genocide and, since 2001, we have commemorated Holocaust Memorial Day, applied to all holocausts. We acknowledge and mourn the Rwandan genocide of 1994, in which 800,000 Tutsis and Hutus died. The Srebrenica massacre of 1995 has been recognised as genocide by the International Criminal Tribunal, and there are others. However, the UK has yet to recognise the Armenian genocide, despite strong condemnation of it at the time from the British Government as “a crime against humanity”. Churchill referred to the infamous massacre and deportation of Armenians thus:
“The clearance of the race from Asia Minor was about as complete as such an act, on a scale so great, could well be.”
Despite no fewer than 31 countries officially recognising the Armenian genocide, including European partners such as Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden, and France, which notably recently passed into law the offence of denying that the Armenian killings were genocide, for some reason the UK has failed to follow suit. Earlier this year, the Biden Administration in the US recognised the Ottoman-era Armenian genocide as well. It is therefore surely time for the UK to do the right thing and follow suit.
Let me uniquely quote Hitler, who, ahead of his invasion of Poland in 1939, famously said
“who after all speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?”
That is the point: we cannot legitimately call out and stand up to genocides that are still going on in the 21st century by side-lining and neglecting the genocides of the 20th century. The refusal to recognise the Armenian  genocide risks conveying a dangerous message of impunity that a crime unpunished is a crime encouraged or downplayed. A memorandum from the Foreign Office back in 1999 let the cat out of the bag. It said:
“Given the importance of our relationship (political, strategic, commercial) with Turkey…recognising the genocide would provide no practical benefit to the UK”.
That is not good enough. Glossing over the uncomfortable inconveniences of history is not the basis for strong and constructive relationships with supposed allies in the present day.
Earlier this year, the House rightly voted unanimously to recognise the Chinese genocide of the Uyghur people going in Xinjiang. Every aspect of what happened to the Armenian people deserves the same title and regard. Just as the Uyghur atrocities continue, the recent invasion of Nagorno-Karabakh by Azerbaijan, which has forced 90,000 Armenians to flee their homes due to the threat of ethnic cleansing, serves as a warning that Armenians remain vulnerable today. Disgracefully, the Azerbaijanis issued a set of official postage stamps depicting exterminators in hazmat suits cleansing Nagorno-Karabakh of Armenians. What more chilling evidence do we need that some countries need to be reminded about the horrors of genocide?
My Bill would require the UK Government formally to recognise the genocide of the Armenians in the period from 1915 to 1923; establish an annual commemoration to victims of the Armenian genocide, which may be part of a wider commemoration of genocides; and ensure that the facts of the Armenian genocide and its relevance are acknowledged in the curriculum, just as we do with other historical genocides. Such an undertaking would help to right an historical injustice; help to advance genocide studies globally; raise public awareness on crimes against humanity; and send out a strong message and assurance to the Armenian community in the United Kingdom that we share and recognise their pain and will stand with them against the revisiting of such crimes in future.
The Bill is strongly supported by hon. Members from at least five parties across the House—I am glad to see some of them in their places—including the Conservative party, the Labour party, the Liberal Democrats, the Democratic Unionist party and the Scottish National party. It has the backing of the Armenian National Committee. I am particularly grateful to Annette Moskofian, its chair, for all her help and support both for the all-party parliamentary group for Armenia and in preparing the Bill. I also thank the ambassador. I am glad to see and be able to acknowledge the presence of both of them in the Public Gallery.
The Bill is important. The Armenian genocide is not an historical anachronism but an important contemporary issue where, inexplicably, we have failed to read the room internationally. We urgently need to put that right now. Many of us were disappointed with the relatively tame condemnation last year of Azerbaijan’s invasion of Nagorno-Karabakh and the ongoing atrocities committed against Armenian prisoners and Armenians still trying to live in homelands that their ancestors have inhabited for centuries. With the Bill, we have the opportunity to do our bit to help right an appalling historical injustice and, as a leading advocate of human rights on the international stage, send out a clear message that we recognise genocide—wherever and whenever it  has been committed—as the worst crime against humanity and that we will call it out, defend the victims and bring the perpetrators to justice.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Tim Loughton, Sir Iain Duncan Smith, John Spellar, Chris Law, Christine Jardine, James Gray, Jim Shannon, Andrew Rosindell, Dr Rupa Huq, Wera Hobhouse, Alan Brown and Chris Stephens present the Bill.
Tim Loughton accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 18 March 2022, and to be printed (Bill 190).

Nigel Evans: Order. Before we move on, following the earlier points of order about the Committee on Standards, information has now come to me that a motion has been tabled for Monday that will do exactly what Mr Bryant, the Chair of the Committee, said: endorse the Committee’s proposals and rescind the proposals for reform. I do believe it is important that the House gets to know these things as quickly as possible so that it can make all sorts of preparations. It is a shame that that was not made clear earlier.

Backbench Business

Giving Every Baby the Best Start  in Life

[Relevant document: First Report of the Petitions Committee, Impact of Covid-19 on new parents: one year on, HC 479.]

Sarah Olney: I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of giving every baby the best start in life.
I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for giving us time for the debate. Among all the turbulence created by the pandemic and the lockdown, I am pleased that we have the opportunity to debate at length the impact of those events on those who are likely to live with its after-effects the longest.
The building blocks for lifelong emotional and physical health are laid down in the period from conception to the age of two. Those first 1,001 days are a critical time for development, but they are also a time when babies are at their most vulnerable. Babies do not yet have the language skills to advocate for themselves, so carers and services must be equipped to do that on their behalf. During the first 1,001 days, babies are also uniquely susceptible to their environment. Chronic stress in early childhood, whether caused by maternal depression, poverty or ill health, has a negative impact on a baby’s development.
Early intervention and prevention to support the wellbeing of babies during this time is strongly linked to better outcomes in later life, including educational achievement, progress at work and mental health. Failing to invest in giving babies the best start in life delivers not only a human cost but an economic one. The total known cost of parental mental health problems per year’s births in the UK is estimated to stand at £8.1 billion.

Chris Elmore: I thank the hon. Lady for securing the debate on an issue that is close to my heart, having had a lockdown baby at the end of January—he is just over nine months now, and he is very happy and causing all sorts of chaos in my and his mother’s lives. The hon. Lady mentioned mental health, and my constituent Mark Williams has spent many years speaking publicly about the mental health issues he experienced after having his first child. It is extremely important that we wrap care around the mother and the baby after birth, but does the hon. Lady agree that we should also do more to allow fathers to get support with their mental health and to realise that becoming a father is a deeply profound thing and that there is nothing wrong with talking about our mental health as a father after having a child?

Sarah Olney: I congratulate the hon. Member on the birth of his baby, and I hope that all is progressing well. I am grateful to him for raising that point about fathers, and I will come to it later in my speech.
My interest in this topic arose from conversations I have had with constituents who gave birth during lockdown. They told me about the isolating experience of not being able to have their partners in the delivery room with them, not being able to share their new babies with the wider family and not being able to meet up with  other new parents to support each other and share their experiences. Thinking back to my own experiences of early motherhood—12 years ago—I remember how much it meant to me to have all those people around me as I recovered from the birth and got used to my new life as a parent. My heart goes out to all those who struggled in isolation during those early months, and I am determined that young families should be prioritised for support as we emerge out of the other side of the pandemic.
The UK Government’s recent focus on investment in the first 1,001 days in their “Best Start for Life” vision and funding is very welcome and will undoubtedly make a significant difference to families. I pay tribute in particular to the efforts of the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom), who has been unsparing in her work to bring the needs of our very youngest citizens to the forefront of public policy and funding.
One of the most important sources of support for new parents is a health visitor. Even for those who enjoyed the most robust mental health, having sudden responsibility for a tiny and vulnerable new baby who is entirely dependent on them is a source of great anxiety. Having a visit from a trained health care professional who can give them advice, answer their questions and, above all, reassure them is enormously helpful and can make all the difference to their early experience of parenthood.
Although the UK is no longer in lockdown, both access to services and working patterns have changed. Some support services, such as playgroups, have not survived, and some have closed altogether. Children’s centres have reopened, but numbers are limited and places need to be booked in advance, which may mean that the families with the least time on their hands will lose out. The co-ordinators and volunteers at Home-Start Richmond, Kingston & Hounslow have told me about the high levels of anxiety experienced by new mothers unable to access health visitor advice and reassurance. That is impacting new mothers’ confidence and their ability to meet their baby’s needs.
Health visitors are a skilled workforce of specialist public health nurses who have the expertise to provide holistic care to families. As the only professionals positioned to reach every young child before they start school, health visitors play a crucial role in child safety and early childhood development. They identify and manage developmental delay, as well as common and serious health problems. They also provide support around childhood immunisations and advice on infant feeding, safe sleeping and mental health, all of which relieves pressure on NHS emergency departments and specialist services.
However, there is currently no national plan to address falling health visiting workforce numbers. The Government's spending review stated that it
“maintains the Public Health Grant in real terms, enabling Local Authorities across the country to continue delivering frontline services like child health visits.”
In fact, the Government are maintaining the public health grant at a level that is too low for many local authorities to resource health visiting services that can deliver face-to-face visits and the support described in the healthy child programme and other national guidance.
Ahead of the spending review, 700 leading children’s sector organisations were united in their call for investment for 3,000 more health visitors over the next three years. However, I am concerned that £500 million over the next three years will not deliver the Government’s pledge to rebuild health visiting. It is of the most urgent importance that we restore face-to-face health visiting to every new mother as the most essential building block of support to families as they welcome their new babies.
The importance of early home visits by skilled healthcare professionals was highlighted to me by one constituent who wrote to me last summer. She said:
“My baby is now 6 months old and soon after birth he was diagnosed with SMA type 1. If you are not familiar with it, the full name is Spinal Muscular Atrophy and it’s a muscular wasting illness. There isn’t a cure for it and without treatments and proper care the life expectancy of a baby is less than 2 years. He is currently under treatment but, and here is the reason for this letter, every possible centre specialised in physiotherapy, hydrotherapy or other physical activities for disabled people is shut due to Covid-19.
My husband and I were the ones who had to notice something was not right with Peter because, due to Covid, no one came for home visits after birth to see the baby or me. I almost died in child birth and because we were left alone I had to endure 1 month bed ridden due to further complications, once again noticed by me. Only once I was able to walk again we saw something wasn’t right with the baby. If after 2 weeks the health visitor had been able to come home, my son would have started treatment sooner without losing the mobility of his legs.”
I want to talk a little more about the importance of diagnosing and treating perinatal mental health. Maternal suicide is the leading cause of direct deaths within a year of pregnancy. An estimated one in four women experience mental health problems in the first 1,001 days after pregnancy. While depression and anxiety are the most common perinatal mental health problems, other conditions include eating disorders, psychosis, bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. One in 10 fathers is also affected by perinatal mental health problems. Of the 241 families that Home-Start Richmond, Kingston & Hounslow supported during the most recent year, 66% were experiencing mental health difficulties, including post-natal depression, anxiety, depression and chronic mental health conditions.
I was privileged to be able to visit Springfield University Hospital in Tooting recently to meet the perinatal psychiatry team for the South West London and St George’s Mental Health NHS Trust. I was extremely pleased to hear about the work the trust is doing in successfully supporting new mothers who struggle with their mental health, and particularly that it was able to maintain its services during the lockdown and after. Akvinder Bola-Emerson, the clinical services lead for perinatal psychiatry, stressed in particular the need for peer support but also the importance of health visitors, whom she described as the “eyes and ears” of perinatal mental health services.
The visit highlighted for me that we also need better provision for new and expectant fathers. Currently only mothers can be formally diagnosed with a perinatal mental health problem. Springfield provides services for fathers, but it is currently able to identify mental health issues in fathers only when they accompany a mother who is attending the hospital for perinatal mental health issues.

Jonathan Edwards: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady for securing the debate, and she is making some very important  points. Does she agree that one of the worst situations expectant parents can find themselves in is when there is a miscarriage and that parental leave for such parents would be a welcome reform?

Sarah Olney: I am grateful to the hon. Member for his intervention. He is absolutely right that there are a large number of events and incidents surrounding pregnancy and birth—as I know from my own experience—that can cause huge distress, and it is right that mothers and the people supporting them, and fathers as well, get the support they need, including statutory leave from employment for the time it takes to come to terms with the miscarriage. That is certainly something we should be looking at.
We know that impending fatherhood can be a cause of great anxiety for men, and more services need to be developed to support them. We also know that over a third of domestic violence starts or gets worse when a woman is pregnant. I would speculate that some of that is attributable to undiagnosed and untreated mental health conditions in expectant fathers, which underlines the need to do more to support them.
In addition to health visiting and perinatal psychiatry, support for children and their families throughout their early years is vital for enhancing children’s prospects at school and beyond. Evidence shows that effective integration of services in the earliest years can bring broad benefits. For example, Sure Start children’s centres are shown to decisively reduce hospitalisations during childhood. However, 1,300 children’s centres have closed since 2010, and recent research has shown that 82% of parents of young children have struggled to access early years services. I am pleased that the Government have now committed £80 million to introducing family hubs to 75 local authorities across England, and £50 million for parenting programmes. However, we need more information on what family hubs can provide, and I would particularly like to ensure that health visiting and mental health support are included.
The importance of the right support in the early years was brought home to me after a recent meeting with primary headteachers in my constituency. I heard about how difficult it is for nursery and reception-age children to settle into class and to get used to spending time with other children and not spending all day at home with their parents. For adults, lockdown has been 18 months of inconvenience, after which we expect to be able to pick up the threads of our former life. However, some young children who started nursery this term will have spent up to a third of their life in lockdown, and we cannot yet know what the long-term impact will be.

Wera Hobhouse: Is my hon. Friend alarmed, as I am, by the fact that domestic violence has increased during lockdown, which has particularly affected young or very young children? The Government need to look at the backlog of cases that have arisen through the lack of attention to domestic violence, or inability to look at it, during lockdown, as it did not really come to our attention.

Sarah Olney: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and incidents of domestic violence during lockdown are a matter of grave concern. We know there is a clear link between domestic violence starting or worsening and a  pregnancy in a family. That issue needs a huge amount of attention; more mental health support for both partners would help a great deal.
The lockdown will have increased disparities in educational outcomes between those from poorer backgrounds and their richer classmates, and I call on the Government to do more to provide catch-up funding to our schools, and allow them to spend it on a greater range of services. Local headteachers tell me that funding can be allocated only to academic tuition, and that they have identified many children, including the very youngest, who need mental and emotional support to help them in school.
I will conclude by saying thank you to everyone who has talked to me about their experiences in this area, but particularly our health visiting and perinatal mental health teams, who do so much good and valuable work for new families. I also acknowledge the huge contribution made by the voluntary sector in supporting new families, in particular the work of Home-Start, which provides an excellent network of support. It takes only a small amount of encouragement, a little word of advice or a sympathetic listening ear to give a new parent confidence, but it can make a world of difference to their children. A small investment in the beginning of life can reap huge rewards, not just for individual children and their families but for whole communities, and the right start can enhance not just individual educational achievement and wellbeing but reduce risky and antisocial behaviours. Few pounds could be better spent, or yield a more valuable return, than those invested in our youngest citizens.

Andrea Leadsom: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) in this important debate, and I congratulate her and the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) as fellow co-sponsors and tireless fellow campaigners for giving every baby the best start in life.
Despite the rough and tumble of politics, there are times when colleagues from all parties in the House come together. Early years is one such cross-party issue. Over the past 11 years in Parliament, I have been proud to work with many colleagues on the early years. The hon. Members for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) and for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), my stalwart and long-standing hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), and my hon. Friends the Members for Eddisbury (Edward Timpson) and for Winchester (Steve Brine) have all been amazing campaigners for the earliest years, as has the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss). The former Member for Birkenhead, Lord Field, and the former Member for East Dunbartonshire, Jo Swinson, have been great allies, as have all those Members who supported the all-party group conception to age two: first 1,001 days, and Ministers on the inter-ministerial group on early years family support from 2018-19.
It is fantastic that since the 2019 general election, the early years agenda has received fresh support from new colleagues such as my hon. Friends the Members for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates), for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie), for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken), for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn  Mackrory), and for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds). I also pay tribute to the late Baroness Tessa Jowell. She and I worked together on the 1,001 critical days agenda, and she campaigned for it to be introduced as part of the sustainable development goals at the United Nations. I must also mention the superb work of the Royal Foundation and its Centre for Early Childhood. The commitment from Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Cambridge and her team has generated fresh attention for ensuring that every baby gets the best start in life.
This subject has been my personal passion for more than 20 years, from chairing the Oxford parent-infant project, to setting up the parent infant partnership UK, and the Northamptonshire parent infant partnership, establishing the 1,001 critical days manifesto and the all-party group conception to age two: first 1,001 days, and chairing the inter-ministerial group in the Government of my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May). July 2020 marked a huge opportunity when the Prime Minister commissioned the early years healthy development review and invited me to chair it. Since then, we have been able to build on years of cross-party support, and a wealth of knowledge and expertise from the early years sector, to create a new vision for the 1,001 critical days initiative that was launched in March this year. The review has put the baby’s needs at the centre of all our work. Through meetings with parents and carers, virtual visits to local areas, and detailed discussions with parliamentarians, practitioners, academics and charities, we heard about the experience of early years services and support, and about what is going well and where change is needed.
First and foremost, we learnt from every parent and carer of their strong desire to be the best parent they can be, but we also learnt that new prospective parents often struggle to find the support they need. We heard from many parents who had deep concerns about their own or their partner’s mental health, and struggled to get timely support. We heard from many mums who desperately wanted to breastfeed but gave up because the support was not there. Parents told us how frustrating it was to keep telling their story over and over again to different people. Their cry was, “Why don’t you people ever speak to each other?” Equally, we heard from professionals and volunteers who said it would have been so helpful for them if they had known before meeting a new parent or carer about previous trauma or health challenges.
We heard from many dads about how excluded they felt from what they saw as “mum-centric” services. Some felt that they should not ask for any support for themselves, while others just felt sidelined and, in some cases, traumatised by what their partner had gone through in childbirth. We heard from foster carers of babies how little information came their way when caring for a vulnerable baby. More specifically, in 40 cases of babies who went into foster care, only two arrived with their red book. Those carers had no formal information about that baby’s early traumas that had caused them to be taken away from their birth family.
We heard from same-sex couples about unhelpful assumptions by early years professionals about their relationship and parenting roles. We heard from black mums about how particular cultural and health issues  can be overlooked by busy staff. We heard from single mums and single dads about how they can feel isolated, and sometimes stigmatised, at such a life-changing time. We heard from many parents with particular challenges, such as not speaking English well, concerns about possible disabilities, experiencing violence in their lives, or other significant challenges. We heard that support is inconsistent and sometimes hard to access.
It comes as no surprise that the covid pandemic has been an extraordinarily difficult time for new families who, through no fault of their own, have not been able to access services or support in the normal way. The “Babies in Lockdown” report from the Parent-Infant Foundation, Best Beginnings and Home-Start reveals that nearly seven in 10 parents felt that changes brought about by covid were affecting their unborn baby, their baby, or their young child, and that 35% of parents would like help with their concerns about their relationship with their baby. The report also found that nine out of 10 parents and carers experienced higher levels of anxiety during lockdown.
Despite the many stories of difficulties, we also heard fantastic examples of good support for families. Many health visitors went the extra mile to keep in contact with families who were struggling, and many families found it incredibly reassuring to be able to text or Zoom their health visitor at short notice. Parenting programmes have been a huge support to many families, and we virtually visited Camden’s Bump to Baby programme, where classes continued online throughout the pandemic, and have proved incredibly popular with new parents and carers who are also helped to make friendships outside the programme. Dads gave us positive feedback on services that gave them space to share their experiences, without worrying about whether they were taking the focus away from the other partner’s health and wellbeing.
In lockdown, we also heard about excellent online and virtual services, and how they came into their own. One such service, Parent Talk, provided by Action for Children, reported a 430% increase in the number of parents seeking advice online during the pandemic. The Baby Buddy app, produced by Best Beginnings, has seen a huge take-up of its digital and virtual advice for everything from breastfeeding to nappy changing, and from sleep management to mental health concerns. Many local authorities are now determined to improve their joined-up offer to new parents and carers, so I certainly feel that we are pushing against an open door.
Our report, “The Best Start for Life: A Vision for the 1,001 Critical Days”, was launched by the Prime Minister in March this year. It contains six action areas. The first is that every local area should publish its own joined-up set of start for life services so that every parent and carer knows where to go for help.
The second is a welcoming hub for every family, in the form of family hubs. Those will build on the excellent work done by the late Baroness Tessa Jowell and others on creating Sure Starts, but the benefit of family hubs is that they will be the place where every family goes for support and advice, including from midwives, health visitors, mental health support workers and breastfeeding advisers within their walls. Not only will those services be physically available but they will be virtually available through the family hub model.
The third action area is a digital version of the red book, which will provide parents and carers with a record of their baby’s earliest life, from lovely moments  such as their first tooth and their first steps, all the way to records of immunisations and professional support interventions.
The fourth action area is about the workforce. We all know that health visitors provide critical support for new parents and carers, but we also know that their case load can be very heavy, and parents and carers have told us that they really want more continuity of care and more frequent contact in the earliest years. We are therefore working with health visitors and local areas to consider resourcing levels and training needs, and whether a mixed-skill workforce can provide that greater continuity of care.
The fifth action area is to continually improve the start for life offer. A key action will be to establish parent and carer panels in every local area to ensure that the voices of families are heard when services are designed and improved. We are looking at improving the collection of data, at the evaluation of different interventions and at the need for proportionate inspection of the start for life offer in each area. A final but critical action area is to ensure that there is sound leadership, both locally and nationally, to drive the ambition to give every baby the best start for life.
I want to say a huge thank you to the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup), and to all the review’s sponsoring Ministers, past and present, for their support for the review. I am sure that it was their commitment, combined with the support of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor, that ensured such a positive spending review settlement for the earliest years, with £82 million for family hubs, £50 million for parenting programmes, £10 million for the start for life offer, £50 million for breastfeeding support, £100 million for infant and perinatal mental health support, £10 million for new workforce pilots, and a £200 million uplift for the supporting families programme. I believe that £500 million is a transformational sum that will allow many more parents and carers access to the vital help they need to give their baby the best start for life.
Why does this matter so much to our society? Well, we know that it is in the period from conception to the age of two when the building blocks for physical and emotional health are laid down. Babies born into secure and supportive homes will usually go on to become happy children who do well at school and grow into adults who cope well with life’s ups and downs and are more likely to hold down a job, have better health outcomes and form healthy relationships themselves. On the other hand, we know that in families under pressure, particularly where there is partner conflict, substance misuse, poor mental health or deprivation, the consequences for a baby’s developing mind in that critical early period can be far-reaching and very harmful.
Prevention is not just kinder; it is also significantly cheaper than cure. For example, the NHS has estimated that for every one-year cohort of births in England, the long-term cost of lack of timely access to quality perinatal mental health care is £1.2 billion to the NHS and social services and more than £8 billion to society. That is for every year’s cohort. We also know that up to 30% of domestic violence begins during pregnancy, and that health issues such as tooth decay and childhood obesity cost hundreds of millions of pounds every year in  health-related expenses. We believe that those things could be significantly reduced by better education and support for new families.
With these six action areas, I think we can transform our approach to early years support and services, improving the health outcomes and life chances of the youngest in our society. Just as we need to level up economic opportunity across the country, we must also focus on where it begins—that critical period of human life from conception to the age of two.

Jonathan Edwards: The right hon. Member is giving a very comprehensive speech. Does she also agree that the Government should look at the issue of shared parental leave? The stats seem to indicate that fewer than 4% of eligible fathers take up the Government’s current policy. The Government need to look at that, and the forthcoming employment Bill may be an opportunity to strengthen those provisions.

Andrea Leadsom: I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman that it would be fantastic for families and babies if more dads took up shared parental leave. Of course, as he will know, that has been legislated for. Unfortunately, as he points out, far too few fathers have taken it up to date. I certainly wish that more would have the confidence to do so.
I believe that all colleagues across the House would agree that the world in which we all want to live is one where every baby is nurtured to fulfil their potential, where good lifelong emotional wellbeing is the norm, where our society is productive and co-operative, and where every one of our citizens has the chance to be the very best that they can be.

Catherine McKinnell: I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting time to debate this incredibly important subject. I also commend my colleagues, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) and the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom), for setting out so eloquently and passionately the case for focusing on this issue. I had hoped that, as co-sponsors of the debate and co-conspirators on this issue, we would not just repeat one another’s arguments, and I believe that, without co-ordinating in any way, we will not. We agree on the problem—we agree on the challenge and the importance of this issue—but today I want to focus on the enormous challenge presented by poverty in overcoming many of these issues.
We know from international evidence that so many important life outcomes, from health to wealth and wellbeing, have their origins in early childhood, but the reality is that not all childhoods are equal. If we truly want to give every child the best start in life, we must tackle poverty and economic disadvantage. There is substantial evidence demonstrating the damaging, stigmatising and often lifelong impact of experiencing poverty in childhood. It affects cognitive skills, social and emotional development, physical health, mental health, educational outcomes, employment prospects, the likelihood of being in poverty as an adult, and life expectancy.
Recent reports have highlighted starkly that the impact of poverty begins in very early childhood, or even pre-birth. For example, last month, MBRRACE-UK—  Mothers and Babies: Reducing Risk through Audits and Confidential Enquiries across the UK—reported that
“babies born to women living in the most deprived areas are twice as likely to be stillborn, and at a 73% excess risk of neonatal death compared to babies born to women living in the least deprived areas”.
Likewise, national child mortality database research published in May found a clear link between deprivation and child death. It concluded that around 700 fewer child deaths per year—a fifth of all child deaths—might be avoided if children living in the most deprived areas had the same mortality risk as those living in the least deprived. Poverty is literally killing children.

Wera Hobhouse: Is the hon. Member as concerned and shocked as I am about data showing that a mother from an ethnic minority background has a much higher likelihood of experiencing complications during pregnancy or birth that result in their baby being either stillborn or born with a disability? Does she agree that we need absolutely to focus on such discrimination and disadvantages?

Catherine McKinnell: Yes, I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady. As the Chair of the Petitions Committee, I can say we received petitions on that issue and debated it in Parliament. We have been given some assurances from the Government, but it is imperative that all of us in this House ensure an improvement in both the statistics and the reality for those who experience it.
It is well established in education research that on average the longer a child has been disadvantaged the worse their performance will be at school, particularly in key stage 4 assessments. Even where children from more deprived backgrounds do achieve the same results as their better-off peers, they are still likely to have lower lifetime earnings. How unbelievably disheartening is that?
Sadly, child poverty is getting worse. Government statistics on households below average income published this spring show just how many families were struggling before covid-19. In 2020, 200,000 more children were pushed into poverty compared to the previous year, using the measure of relative poverty after housing costs. That means 4.3 million children living in poverty: real children living in real hardship. I know the Government do not readily accept the concept of relative poverty, but Ministers should listen to the recommendation of the Work and Pensions Committee to end the sole focus on absolute poverty and look at broader measures. After all, if the Government are committed to levelling up, improving the position of a child in Newcastle relative to a child in Middlesex is surely more relevant to comparing a child in Newcastle today with a child in Newcastle 11 years ago.
Even if we use only the Government’s preferred absolute poverty measure, the proportion of children living in poverty rose by an average of four percentage points in every north-east local authority area between 2014-15 and 2019-20, while the number of children living in absolute poverty across the north-east rose by more than 21,000 during that period. The latter point is particularly concerning as absolute poverty is a measure that has always tended to naturally improve over time  as living standards rise, but in the north-east it is going in the opposite direction. As troubling as the pre-pandemic figures are, none of that should come as a surprise given the direction of Government policy over the last 10 years. Indeed, the country went into the pandemic expecting to spend £36 billion less on social security because of Government welfare policy. That has to come from somewhere, and it is coming from the poorest pockets and the mouths of children.
Just as Government action can lead to increases in child poverty, it can bring them down too. We have seen it before, especially under the previous Labour Government. What we need is a cross-governmental strategy for tackling child poverty, something groups such as the North East Child Poverty Commission and the Child Poverty Action Group have consistently called for. It needs to go a lot further than anything we have heard from the Government to date. It should include a welfare system that prevents and reduces poverty, giving all families a dignified safety net when they are going through tough times. It should tackle unemployment and low-paid insecure work, the kind of work that means most children living in poverty are now in working families. We need concerted action to support families with the cost of major outgoings: energy, housing and childcare.
All those things were problems pre-pandemic and they still need to be addressed, but covid-19 and the lockdowns of the last year-and-a-half have brought additional challenges for parents and young children. For the past 18 months, the Petitions Committee, which I Chair, has investigated the pandemic’s impact on new parents and children, and expressed its deep concerns that it is being overlooked by the Government. Our first report in July 2020 highlighted the need for urgent catch-up investment to help new parents access support services disrupted by the pandemic, and to do more to ensure employers meet their health and safety duties towards pregnant women. Unfortunately, the Government rejected almost all our recommendations, saying that support was “sufficiently generous” for
“the vast majority of parents”.
That, however, did not match up with all the evidence we heard from new parents about their struggles. We heard that crucial support for children’s wellbeing and development was being missed, that there were concerns about employers not meeting their health and safety duties towards pregnant women, and about additional difficulties in accessing childcare. I fear that the Government know that the impacts of all of that are long term, and that by the time the impacts of their failure to invest will be seen, they may be well gone, or at least their failure forgotten.
This year the Committee decided to revisit those issues with a follow-up report, but unfortunately it is already clear that we are seeing the impact of the Government’s lack of action in this area, including: children coming into early years classes behind in their social development; increasing rates of poor mental health among new mothers; and childcare providers going out of business. The Committee found that new and expectant parents’ access to support has remained severely limited. Many have lost out entirely on the crucial window of support available in the early months of their child’s life, and issues around children’s development and parents’ mental health will have been missed. I have said repeatedly that there is a good reason why we wrap  a blanket of support around new mums and their babies—and dads, too. It is needed at the time and the long-term impacts of not providing it are well known. Urgent investment is needed to provide catch-up mental health and health visiting support.
The Government have failed to deliver on stronger workplace discrimination protections for new and expectant mothers, and they have repeatedly promised to do that. That is especially concerning as the economic impact of the pandemic continues to be felt. I pressed the Prime Minister on that at the Liaison Committee, and I urge the Government to pass those protections into law as soon as possible. If mums are being discriminated against, it is bad for their children, too.
The pandemic has also exacerbated pre-existing problems in the early years sector. Government financial support has been welcome, but it has not prevented many early years providers seeing a significant impact on their finances, with low pay for staff, many of whom are mums too, and high costs for parents. The pandemic may well contribute to or even accelerate an ongoing erosion of provision. I therefore urge the Government to consider a review of early years funding to ensure it is affordable and meets the needs of new parents seeking to return to work. They could set out a clear vision for our children, our undervalued early years and childcare workforce, and ensure that no parent must choose between their child and their career.
Before I conclude, I want to ask the Minister some specific questions on the Government’s proposed family hubs. Given that there are 152 upper-tier councils in England and there will be 75 family hubs, it looks like just under half of local authorities will benefit from the programme. Have the Government already determined the criteria by which the funding will be allocated? We assume it will be based on some measure of deprivation, but will the Minister confirm that? May I urge the Government not to continue their approach of forcing overstretched local authorities to commit their scarce resources to making funding applications? We should not be pitting local authorities with high levels of deprivation and child poverty, such as those in the north-east, against each other to receive support. How does the Minister see family hubs working in large local authority areas, often with poor public transport links? For example, getting across Newcastle with young children to access services via public transport can be challenging, particularly for my constituents in the Outer West. Large rural areas like Durham and Northumberland face their own challenges. I hope when the Minster responds, she will confirm that services will be “within pram-pushing distance” of the families they are intended to help, as was the aim of the Sure Start programme.
In conclusion, the crushing pressure that poverty places on families and children is clear. It impacts our children’s lives directly when parents and carers do not have enough money to meet their children’s material, social and educational needs. It impacts on them indirectly by creating stress, insecurity and conflict at home.
These adverse childhood experiences inevitably influence children’s development and wellbeing, creating a vicious cycle. To escape that cycle, we need a coherent, cross-departmental anti-child poverty strategy, backed by proper investment. It is fair to say that we are pretty far from that at the moment when the Government often seem unsure about which Minister to send to respond to child poverty debates. Such pervasive child poverty is  not inevitable. The last Labour Government reduced child poverty and the concerns about child welfare that it creates. We can do it again and truly give every child the best start in life. We just need the Government to care truly about achieving it.

Tim Loughton: I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) and the other colleagues who secured the debate. It is great to be having a debate about early years again; we are having a few of them these days. It never happened when I first became a Member of the House and has not for much of my 24 years here. It is really fantastic that such a relevant and important subject to so many of our constituents is now commonplace in the Chamber and that there is real, concerted action. We may disagree over the extent or detail of that, or the amount of money that is going into it, but I think we all agree about the direction and emphasis.
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell), and I agree with much of what she said. It is also a great pleasure—but a great challenge—to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom), who is such a guru on this subject that anything the rest of us say subsequently will pale into relative irrelevance, but I will give it a bash anyway.
I want to recount an episode that happened when I was Children’s Minister 11 years ago. I used to spend a week of the summer recess going out on the frontline with some of the workforce, without any fuss and without any cameras, just to see what their job involved at first hand. I remember my first time: I spent a week in Stockport going out with social workers, knocking on doors, seeing cases at first hand, manning the overnight emergency helplines, sitting in on morning meetings and liaising with police and others. It was a fascinating experience, which I recommend to any other Member. I think it should be compulsory for all Ministers and their officials to spend time with the professionals over whose regulations that Department has responsibility. That is where we find out the most. I used to find out most of my information from sitting down with groups of children in care, as the Minister responsible for children in care; that is where we find out what is really going on.
A really good social worker took me to my first case, and I think that she deliberately chose the most challenging case in the most run-down, depressing part of the town. We went into a house that was a complete mess. There was a young mum with three young boys. There were no carpets on the floor. There was virtually no furniture, other than what had been dumped in the garden. There was no food in the house—the fridge was bare—other than what the kids literally were eating off the floor. There were bare mattresses for beds and piles of dirty clothing.
One of the kids had had a really dire toothache for some weeks, and the social worker had gone on at the mum about getting the child some treatment for it. On the day that we visited, the mum had had a toothache problem. On the previous day, she had gone down to the emergency dentist and had her tooth fixed, but she did not have the presence of mind to take her son who was suffering from toothache along with her.
What does someone do with a family like that? Plenty of professionals had been going in and out of that house to offer different bits of help, but that mum required some serious support. She had been abused as a child, as is so often the case. The father was not on the scene and she had been subject to domestic abuse, as is so often the case. We all know, extraordinarily, that about a third of domestic violence starts during pregnancy. So there she was, highly vulnerable and desperately in need of support, but her life was not improving and the life chances of her children were certainly not. So what does someone do?
Those children could have been taken into care. They probably would have been split up, going to different families across the area and perhaps beyond. The mum would have been completely distraught at that prospect. Inadequate though she was, for whatever reason, in the care that she provided, she absolutely doted on those kids and they doted on her, so what was the solution? That is the sort of judgment of Solomon that our social workers have to make day in, day out when dealing with those really complex, challenging cases.
That case, which I will remember for the rest of the time that I am involved in these areas, encapsulates all the challenges that we face in children’s social care and all the challenges relating to the whole issue of the best start in life and the project that the Government have undertaken, thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire. That is why it is so important. One of the answers is to have a joined-up approach locally, with all the different professionals working together as a team to encapsulate mum and family. It is about having somebody who can literally take her by the arm and march her down to a children’s centre to get family support and advice or march her down to the dentist with little Johnny to make sure that he gets dental treatment—somebody to take control of people’s lives and get them on the straight and narrow until they can fend for themselves and their family again. We need local professionals working as one, with a lead person who has responsibility, who has all the joined-up knowledge about what needs to happen, and who has the force and confidence to make it happen.
We also need the Government to be joined up at the centre. I remember that when we were trying to get the early intervention grant sorted, we were getting the run- around from officials because the fund would affect various Departments. We were told, “Oh, we can book you an appointment with the Minister in that Department in a few weeks’ time, and then perhaps you can have another meeting with that Minister.” In the end, the only way my co-Minister Sarah Teather and I got the problem sorted was by ringing up all the Housing, Health, Home Office and other Ministers responsible. We all had pizza in the Adjournment, agreed what the strategy should be, went back to our Departments the following morning and told our civil servants, “This is what we want to happen.” All the civil servants said, “That’s not the way we do things here, Minister,” to which we all said, “Tough. Do it.”
The problem is that government does not work in a joined-up way, which is why the approach that my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire has taken is really pioneering. I pay tribute to her for  the way she has brought things together, forcing Departments to sit down, work together and have a strategy that works as one. That is the only way we will sort the problem sustainably for the future, which is key to the whole approach.
The hon. Member for Richmond Park has set out the problems: the £8.1 billion that perinatal mental illness costs each year; the £15 billion that we spend each year in this country on child neglect, particularly in relation to younger children; the £6 billion that childhood obesity costs each year, which is likely to rise to £9 billion within the next few years. As well as the cost of domestic abuse and safeguarding, we are spending £20 billion to £30 billion-plus each year as the cost of getting it wrong for some of the most vulnerable children and their families. Spending a fraction of that on solutions to get it right will be absolutely transformational.
Let us look at some research from the Institute of Health Visiting. I will always speak up for health visitors; in my view, frankly, they are one of our emergency services. They have been diverted too often during the pandemic to other parts of the health service, and their absence has been greatly felt. There is a shortage of several thousand: the institute says that we need at least 3,000 additional health visitors over the next three years, and I completely agree. One of the great achievements of the Cameron Government was building up the health visitor workforce, which has since diminished, alas. A survey of health visitors shows that 81% have seen an increase in perinatal mental illness, 80% have seen an increase in domestic abuse, 80% have seen an increase in child behaviour problems, 72% have seen an increase in poverty affecting families and 71% have seen an increase in child safeguarding.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North is right, too. Research from Action for Children shows that
“only 57% of children from poorer backgrounds were ready for school at age five, compared to 74% of their better-off peers…82% of parents of 0-5s in England struggled, or were unable, to access vital non-childcare early years services…78% of parents who were unable to access a service were worried about potential impacts on themselves or their children. The most common concerns were children’s development, and parents’ own mental health and wellbeing.”
That is the cost of failure, and that is why it is so important to have a co-ordinated, joined-up approach. One statistic that has always stayed in my mind is that if a 15 or 16-year-old at school suffers from depression or some form of mental illness, there is a 99% likelihood that their mum suffered from some form of perinatal mental illness or depression—the link is that close. We should be spending so much more time and resources on looking at the pre-school period, particularly from conception to age two, because that is where it all goes pear-shaped. We see the consequences throughout childhood, and they so often carry on into adulthood and stay with the person for the rest of their life. So of course we should be doing more about this, and I am glad that at last the Government have recognised that that is where all the action—or a lot more of the action —needs to be focused.
On health visitors, I agree with the Local Government Association, which has said it is important for the Government to work
“on a children’s workforce strategy to support the development of a well-qualified, well-resourced workforce with the appropriate knowledge, skills and experience to work in a preventative way.  This needs to be an integrated strategy between local authorities, health, education and community and voluntary sector partners, which links effectively with established programmes, such as Supporting Families, Sure Start and Family Hubs and puts the child’s journey at the centre.”
That strategy, it adds, needs to be properly resourced. Well, we are having a lot of extra resource. We could all argue that it is not enough, and the more Opposition Members argue that it is not enough the more I will welcome that, because we could always do with more money; but I think this has been a good start.
Let us look briefly at some of the action areas. One of them is the provision of seamless support for families. As my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire has said, we need to have a lead person who knows all the facts and history of the family involved, and who has the power to say, “This is what needs to happen for that family”, and make sure that it happens. Then there is the welcoming hub for families. I can answer the earlier question from the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North by saying that 75 family hubs have been identified, in about half the number of local authority areas. I hope very much that the other 75 will follow very quickly, so that there is at least one per authority.
Can we get away from the idea that these hubs are a challenge to, or in place of, children’s centres? They are building on the experience of children’s centres and are complementary to them, but they are not just about bricks and mortar; they are about services. I think that in the past we have been too hung up about the amount of bricks and mortar that we have rather than the quality of the services provided, whether as outreach or within children’s centres, and, most important, the outcomes that they are creating for the children for whom they exist and their families.
It is important to ensure that families have the right information at the time when they need it. When people are reluctant to cross the threshold of a children’s centre or a family hub, as my family in Stockport were, they need to have other ways of obtaining that information. It may be a night-time call line, or it may be online, on the internet. It may mean having another professional to call on, or even volunteers—even members of another family who are looking out for vulnerable families. What those people need is a trusted source of information that they can access, rely on and then act on to their benefit.
I think we have all learnt in the past that a top- down approach, with all the geeks in the civil service coming up with whizzy new schemes and trying to impose the same scheme in Newcastle as in a village in South Northamptonshire or a coastal town like Worthing, rarely works. We need national frameworks and national quality thresholds, and we need local design and local implementation. We need to hold people’s feet to the fire. Every local authority needs to come up with a best start in life plan. That local plan needs to meet the thresholds for children’s outcomes, and then the centre needs to ensure that authorities go ahead with those plans and achieve those outcomes. In that way we can have local ownership, local design and local flexibility that are in the best interests of children and their families.
I welcome the “best start in life” programme, and I congratulate all who have made it possible. This has been a huge joint effort. It has been a false economy not  to look at those initial few pre-school years, because that is when we can have the biggest impact on the nurturing value of parents and the attachment that is so essential between a parent or parents and their children, when a child’s brain is growing exponentially—and will be impacted on for the rest of his or her life. At last we have a programme that realises that. Let us ensure that we make it a success for our future generations.

Rosie Winterton: Before I call the next speaker, I must tell the House that we have another debate following this one in which 11 Members have put in to speak so far, so we must be conscious that there are slight time pressures.

Sharon Hodgson: I would like to start by thanking the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom) and my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) for securing this debate at this incredibly important time. I also offer my thanks to the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire for her tireless campaigning on this issue over many years, for her recent leadership of the early years review and for her success in securing funding for the sector in the recent Budget. All those are to be welcomed. It is not easy getting money out of a Chancellor, as we all know. She also knows my dismay at the short-sighted cuts that preceded this funding, making it all the more necessary. I know she agrees that we need to ensure that no Government cut valuable services such as Sure Start or family hubs ever again.
I stand here as a former shadow Minister for children and families, a role now most ably held by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq). It has been said that once anyone has been a children’s Minister, like the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), or a shadow, they can never quite leave the issue alone. It is sort of like an “Order of the Babies” maybe, or a ministerial Hotel California.
Covid-19 has had a profound impact on all of us, but the effects of the lockdown restrictions and social distancing measures were keenly felt in the early years sector. I welcome the “Babies in Lockdown” survey report published today by the Parent-Infant Foundation, Home-Start UK and Best Beginnings. The pandemic is, sadly, far from over, and the report offers signs that the early years sector has developed a form of long covid, if you like. The survey found that nearly a third of mothers questioned reported that health visitor drop-in clinics that existed before the pandemic were no longer operating. I urge colleagues to read the report.
But let me take Members back to 1970, well before Zoom and Teams. Back then, fewer than a quarter of mothers worked; society expected a full-time mother. Without a central focus on the early years, and no talk of the 1,001 critical days or adverse childhood experiences, the education of very young children was neglected. Baroness Blackstone, writing in 1974, highlighted the fact that only 10% of three and four-year-olds attended state nursery schools or classes in 1971, with some areas receiving no service at all.
To combat the lack of state nursery education, the mothers did it themselves. Belle Tutaev set up a playgroup with her neighbour which eventually bloomed into the Pre-School Playgroups Association. This has since become the Early Years Alliance. But the state should have taken up this mantle, rather than the already burdened mothers. Not everyone was convinced of that principle, however. In 1980, George Young, then the Conservative Secretary of State for Social Services, said that he did not
“accept that it is the state’s job to provide day care to enable the parents of young children to go out to work”.
Listening to the debate today, 40 years on, we can see how far we have come from that thinking.
It was the last Labour Government who finally addressed this problem. I have spoken before, as others have today, about the late Tessa Jowell’s Sure Start programme being a beacon of early years policy. Sure Start brought children’s services together under one roof, uniting healthcare with wellbeing, education with childcare, babies with other babies, and parents with other parents. There were 3,620 Sure Start centres in 2010 under Labour. That has fallen, as we heard from the hon. Member for Richmond Park, by more than 1,300 in the past decade or more of Conservative Governments. Those that remain have been effectively hollowed out, offering only skeleton services with minimal opening hours. While the Government’s pledge to fund 75 more family hubs is obviously welcome, it does little to make up for that loss. I know the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham said it is not all about the buildings but, when we have lost 1,300 and replaced them with 75, it is trying to get a quart into a pint pot, as they used to say.

Andrea Leadsom: It has been such a pleasure to work with the hon. Lady on this topic for so many years. I just want to put on the record that it is not 75 family hubs, but 75 upper-tier local authorities; it will be for them to decide, but it could be hundreds or thousands of family hubs. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) drew the same conclusion, so I really want to set the record straight on that point, if the hon. Lady will forgive me.

Sharon Hodgson: I am very grateful to the right hon. Lady. That is an important clarification, and we must ensure it is out there that maybe it will not just be 75, but that they can make it many more. Let us hope it is 1,300; I am sure she will agree with that. That said, I warmly welcome what I think is the Government’s tacit admission that they got it wrong when they defunded the Sure Start programme, even though, as we all remember, on the eve of the 2010 election, David Cameron promised it would be safe in his hands.
However, we are where we are. Earlier this year, I also co-chaired a cross-party early years commission alongside the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Edward Timpson), who, as a former children’s Minister, is also a member of the “Order of the Babies” and a resident of the ministerial Hotel California. The commission heard from a wide range of stakeholders, including educators, academics and policy professionals. I will take the House through some of the recommendations in the comprehensive report.
First, there should be integration of health and education support for children, ensuring that every child receives the health visitor appointments they are entitled to and a new health visit when the child is 18 months old. Secondly, because too few families have access to essential services, a locally relevant and dedicated parent support service is needed in every community in every area. Thirdly, we should upskill early education practitioners by investing in continuing professional development, so that the workforce stay fit to face the challenges of the future. Those proposals could easily be made reality. I sincerely hope that, as part of the £500 million brought forward in the Budget, the Government will deliver all of what we seek in this debate.
As we take part in this debate, we are mindful that the babies and children themselves will not be listening. They will not be tweeting their agreement or penning letters to our offices. I will spare a moment to mention how, beyond their value on their own terms, reforms to the early years offer can be instrumental in improving the lives of those without children, via the economy.
The Early Intervention Foundation found that the cost of late intervention in 2016-17 was £17 billion, owing to the need for services to help with mental health issues, youth crime and exclusion, including a £5.3 billion spend on looked-after children. Early intervention can offset that cost. The Carolina Approach to Responsive Education programme provided intensive, high-quality childcare for ages 0 to 5 in the United States of America and delivered a 13% return on investment per child each year. It netted IQ gains, higher wages, increased likelihood of home ownership and higher scores on achievement tests.
For the family unit, the economic returns are clear too. As the hon. Member for Richmond Park said, parents in areas with Sure Start local programmes moved into paid work more quickly than those without, reducing the benefits bill to the taxpayer and increasing tax receipts for the Treasury. But that is not the full picture: the economic benefits are often only modelled on specific, targeted interventions, whereas the benefits of intervention fan out across a range of factors, such as reducing the later burden on the public purse— the whole point of early intervention—and greater participation in the economy over many years. As such, it is practically very difficult to model the effects of a web of measures applied at once. So just imagine the results we could achieve if those interventions were provided simultaneously, with wholesale improved outcomes delivered via intensive early years support. Britain’s early years offer has the potential to be much greater than the sum of its parts.
To conclude, I would like to look to the world we are creating as legislators in this place. As we speak, delegates from around the world are discussing the means of preserving the planet and protecting the environment in Glasgow at COP26. It is incredibly important that we limit climate change to an increase of 1.5°. Missing, I believe, is leadership for those who will grow up into these environments. The pursuit of climate justice is in no small part to ensure that our children and their children’s children do not face an uninhabitable, hostile world. As those at COP26 work for the future of the planet, let us, here and now, seize this golden opportunity to help those who will inherit it.

Miriam Cates: It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) and I thank the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) for securing this important debate. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom), whose leadership on the issue and perseverance over many years has led to the incredible result of this investment in the first 1,001 days —in such a difficult economic time, it is a real achievement to secure that. It has been a privilege to be part of the early years healthy development review, with a number of others sitting in the House. It has been a great learning experience as a new MP but also a real honour to be part of that. This is an issue I am also very passionate about.
There is no more important period in anyone’s life than the first 1,001 days. As we have heard from many hon. Members, that is the time when the foundations are set for childhood and for the rest of life. Building blocks in terms of patterns of behaviour, how we communicate and our health are all connected and made during that time.
Lockdowns have been so, so damaging for the youngest in society, in all those areas we have heard about: lack of access to professional services, to community support and even to family support, which has really harmed the very youngest in our society. So the £500 million funding comes at a crucial time. I have to say it: it is time to build back better for babies. So there is no better investment for the Government to make than on the first 1,001 days. Babies who go through healthy development have a far greater chance of becoming healthy, happy, fulfilled adults who are going to contribute to the economy and, as the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West said, will be much less likely to be a burden on the taxpayer.
One great paradox of human society is that parenting is so important, but it cannot be left to the experts. About half of us were brought up by people who had never done it before. The truth is that having babies is really hard—I have had three and I should know. It is amazing to me that something so natural, desirable and fulfilling is also so incredibly challenging. It does not always start well. My first child was a full two weeks late and I just escaped induction. He came into the world following a 32-hour labour, so we started parenting after two full nights without any sleep—something I did not even manage to achieve as a student. I had never even held a newborn, let alone been responsible for its survival. When we add the challenges of breastfeeding, living on no sleep, trying to identify when nappies need changing, and eating with one hand when a meal consists of a dry piece of toast that you can put in and out of the toaster without even opening the fridge, it is really tough.
I vividly remember one day, when my newborn was crying and my husband was out. I desperately needed a shower, as we were going out. He would not stop crying. I still needed a shower. I put him in the car seat, strapped him in and stuck him on the floor of the bathroom. I got in the shower and started crying myself. That is just what it is like as a parent of a newborn—then throw in mastitis and the challenges of getting to the town hall to register the baby’s birth, before we get to weaning, potty training and more sleepless nights. What kept me going,  and what kept us going, was family, friends and baby groups. Every day of the week, I found a different group to go to. I developed a routine that made sure that I saw adults every day of the week—other people who were going through the same experiences.
I was really fortunate to develop a strong group of friends who learned to be mums together. Because of that support, interaction and camaraderie, I can honestly say that it was a joy and a privilege to care for a baby and to see them learn and develop. Despite the sheer exhaustion, there is nothing more worth while.
My husband and I had all the support we could ask for—I had a full year of maternity leave and we had the financial security and the practical support to enjoy the first 1,001 days—but it was still really hard. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor, who we know is not short of a bob or two, remarked in a recent newspaper article that even they found it incredibly challenging. It is tough, whatever a person’s circumstances. I would like to say that I was a pro by the time the third child came around, but I am afraid the challenges were just threefold.
The truth is that we are not supposed to care for babies alone: it takes a village to raise a child. Every first-time parent might be a novice, but the truth is that millions of other people out there have done it before and can help. The sad fact is that so many parents do not have the support that I was so fortunate to have. If just one area of a person’s life is fragile—such as relationships, mental or physical health, geographical isolation or poverty, as the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) said—caring for a baby can go from challenging to impossible. For many, there is a cycle of generational abuse and neglect that it is almost impossible for them to break on their own.
As we heard from the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West, the world has changed. A couple of generations ago women did not work outside the home—they definitely worked inside the home—and there was a network of mums, grandmas and aunties on hand to help. Our social fabric was much richer. Nobody wants to return to the 1950s, and we have made incredible progress in so many areas—we must not deny that and must celebrate it—but we do need to intervene to rebirth the social and relational support that is so crucial in equipping families to thrive in the early years. That is why family hubs are so important and why I am so delighted that the Budget included £82 million to develop the network further throughout the country.
Family hubs should provide a one-stop-shop for parents, not only to make it easier for them to access professional support and advice from midwives, health visitors and other professionals but to integrate them with local community groups, build friendships and support networks and bring together the whole community to provide that “village” to help to raise the child, which every parent so desperately needs and to which so many parents do not have access, for all sorts of reasons. Family hubs can also be a place where intervention can happen early so that families with particular issues, whatever they may be, can be helped before the problem gets out of hand and leads to damaging consequences for both the baby and the parents.
How is a first-time parent supposed to know how to deal with colic, with their baby not putting on weight or with conflicts with a partner that are exacerbated by a  lack of sleep? We do not know this stuff without asking other people. That is why family hubs should be available for everyone. Every parent needs support and a great way to provide it is through family hubs. I support the idea of allowing birth registrations at family hubs: if parents have to go there, under a statutory duty, they have then put their foot through the door, seen what is available, made that first contact and, hopefully, built some relationships with people in the community. That will make it that much easier to get support in future. A parent going to their local family hub should be as everyday an event as a person going to their GP surgery, with no stigma attached.
Of course, the start for life offer is all about babies, but if we want to use the language of the market, the parents and carers are the clients, so the whole offer is actually aimed at supporting and equipping parents and carers. I am delighted that we are recognising parenting as the most valuable contribution that anyone can make to society, so I am also pleased that £50 million for parenting skills is part of the offer.
On parenting, I wish to speak briefly about motherhood, which is not something we speak about much. It is brilliant that women are much more valued, in every sense, outside the home than we used to be—we are valued in the workplace and have full equality under the law, and those things should be celebrated—but I sometimes wonder whether we are too much valued through the lens of the traditional male role model, and the hugely important work that many women do in looking after children and building community through the home is massively undervalued, and sometimes looked down on and talked about in the language of oppression. I do not deny that that is the case for many women, but many women are fulfilled in that role and choose it in the early part—the first 1,001 days—of their child’s life. There are good biological reasons why women desire to do that, and I know that I certainly did.
Even the Department for Education’s own stats say that mothers of young children would prefer to work less, but we as a society have made it almost impossible for many women—parents, but often women—to choose to focus on their children in those early years. Our ever-increasing drive to get everyone into the workplace, the tax system and house prices make it impossible for the majority of families to survive on one income. They make it impossible for so many families to choose to take that crucial time out from work in the first two years of a child’s life. We also have a system that expects single mothers to be able to be the provider and the care giver, and that places so many in an impossible situation, which is difficult for them and difficult for the children.
I conclude by saying that children are not an economic inconvenience; they are our best hope for the future and deserving of every investment and support that we can give them. The start of life offer is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to refocus our priorities, to put babies at the centre of policy making, and to give every child the opportunity they need to grow and flourish.

Alex Davies-Jones: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates).
When I was first elected to this House nearly two years ago, I came here not just as a new Member of Parliament but as a first-time new mother. As the hon. Lady has already mentioned, it takes a village, and my village is the best. I had all the support in the world, from my husband, from my family, and from my mam especially, but I still found balancing motherhood and work incredibly difficult. In all honesty, I am still struggling to find the right balance.
How do we give every baby the best start in life? Quite simply, we ensure that our baby is born in Wales. In Wales, we have a real focus on childcare from our Labour Government. Everyone is offered 33 hours of childcare each week for children aged three to four with no terms, no condition. The Flying Start programme in particular does fantastic work supporting families with children under four who live in some of the most disadvantaged areas of Wales. I am also very lucky to have some fantastic local childcare providers in my constituency, including Little Inspirations, which has branches in Tonyrefail and Llantrisant.
Supporting families in looking after their children is an incredibly important part of giving every child the best start in life, and we must do more to support families at this difficult stage in their lives. For many people, myself included, bringing a baby home from hospital is not a straightforward process. I have spoken many times in this place about my own experiences when my son was being cared for on a neonatal unit, and I cannot resist once again taking this opportunity to urge the Government urgently to bring forward their promised legislation on paid neonatal leave for parents. On this occasion, I also want to draw attention to some research by the fantastic charity Bliss on the specific challenges that young parents—those under 25—face.
Bliss found that babies born to mothers aged under 20 are at an increased risk of premature birth and at a 75% increased risk of neonatal death compared with those born to mothers aged 30 to 34. Women living in the most deprived areas of the UK also have a significantly higher risk of stillbirth and neonatal death than more privileged women, as we have already heard today. In order to ensure that every baby has the best start in life, we must start here. Pre-natal and post-natal care are vital, and I would be grateful to the Minister if she could outline exactly what steps the Government are taking to address these inequalities.
We know that the first 1,001 days—from conception to a child’s second birthday—are vital. In many cases, these days are predictors for what level of education a baby will attain, what their health will be like, and even how long they will live. It should be of paramount importance to any Government to work to level this playing field. In this day and age, it simply should not be the case that where a person is born, and who they are born to is the most determining factor in their life.
This Tory Government talk a lot about levelling up, but when it comes right down to it, they fail to act on their promises. Just a few weeks ago, I and my colleagues on the Labour Benches lined up to urge the Government to rethink their decision to cut universal credit. We warned that nearly 300,000 children faced being plunged into poverty, and, once again, they failed to listen and failed to reverse the cut.
We have had a very high-profile U-turn from the Government in this past week, so how about we have another one this week? While I will not hold my breath  for meaningful change, I will use the brief time that I have left to raise genuine concerns about the future of breastfeeding for mums up and down the country. I have spoken out many times about my passion for increased education, awareness and support for those who are breastfeeding in this place, and I pay tribute to the fantastic Breastfeeding Network, which gave a wealth of support to me personally when I was struggling, but, once again, I have to say that the Government have failed to protect those of us who are breastfeeding. I was frankly appalled that the campaign to make it illegal to photograph breastfeeding women without consent reached a halt in the other place last week when a Minister implied that banning photographs of this nature would potentially impact family pornography and require a complex change in the law. We should speak more and more about breast- feeding and the law surrounding the practice, especially in the context of giving babies the best start in life. I sincerely hope that the Minister and the Government are listening. Diolch.

David Simmonds: All of us in this House who are parents or have young children among our family and friends will know that there is an abundance of advice available on the topic of today’s debate and many of us take that advice: we talk to our babies in the womb; we play games with them before they are born; we study baby-led weaning; and we invest in stain-proof covers that never seem to extend quite far enough. But wherever on the nurturing scale we sit as mums and dads, babies thrive when they are surrounded by adults taking an active interest.
The focus of my contribution is the babies and young children who need extra help to thrive—those whose interests are at the heart of the decision by the Government to invest in family hubs in the recent Budget, as championed by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom). As many Members have said, it is welcome that this agenda is taking a higher profile in the context of levelling up, because we all recognise the need to build on sound foundations.
Twenty years’ experience in children’s services has taught me a lot about the strengths and weaknesses of the child support system in our country. Like our NHS, we are very good at emergency services, and studies by academics at the University of Bristol and the University of Warwick show that the UK has a world-leading child protection system. But today’s debate goes beyond protection from harm, and into how we help children to thrive and flourish—something that is a matter not just of social responsibility but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire highlighted, of long-term economic benefit to our country.
Thriving children live lives that cost the taxpayer less and contribute more to everyone’s benefit. To that end, I am going to offer three points, which are focused on how we turn the widely-shared aspiration that we hear in the Chamber—I grew up in the village of the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) and am glad to hear of the progress it is making—into a change that children and their families can see and feel in their lives.
First, we need to follow the flow of money. The funding for early years, which is a key statutory responsibility for all local authorities, remains mired in bureaucratic processes that are dominated by those whose focus, for  good reasons, is elsewhere. Schools forums, which determine the distribution of the dedicated schools grant, in which much of this funding sits, are dominated by the interests of our secondary schools. A fragmented early years sector of small private, voluntary, charitable providers often struggles to be heard. There is a structure around the money that inhibits innovation and flexibility, and stands in the way of creating the joined-up local offer that my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) highlighted. Although I can see that there is a perceived political benefit to lumping that early years funding in with schools, in reality the needs of the sectors are different.

Kevan Jones: I have listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman says about ringfencing and I do not disagree, but that is why Sure Start funding was directed through local authorities and ringfenced at a local level for local authorities to draw up their local strategies. He talks about levelling up, but this process did not start in 2019. We have seen the devastation of Sure Start centres, certainly in County Durham, as a result of cuts to that funding by his Government—although I know that he perhaps was not in the House then.

David Simmonds: It is good to hear the right hon. Member’s contribution. I was in a local authority throughout Sure Start’s implementation period, and although it was welcome to see a Government giving a high degree of priority to children in the earliest years of their lives, there were a number of failings with that programme. One was that the pace at which Government sought to deliver it—for understandable reasons, it was a political priority—meant that poor decisions were often made about the location of services and exactly what was delivered. At a time when many activities outside Sure Start were a high priority for local areas, Sure Start was generously funded to meet the Government’s aspiration while other activities, such as child protection, were starved of cash. Although all Governments want to deliver their priorities, we need to achieve a longer-term consensus about what is in the interests of children in the earliest years of their lives.
I call on Ministers to consider how we free the early years sector from the shackles imposed by the dedicated schools grant and bring it together with other local authority and NHS budgets, so that investment can be aligned with the needs of local families and built on the strengths of the early years sector. We must not forget that the sector is not just about nurseries; it provides an opportunity to join up with a range of local statutory and non-statutory services, which include health visiting, child minding, family hubs, child protection, public health, vaccination services, libraries, play and informal learning. When I was a new parent, the services provided by the libraries of the London borough of Hillingdon, including story time for young children, were an outstanding example of that early support. They were a chance to meet other parents whose children were at the same stage, to get informal advice and tips. That may sit outside what Government mandate, but it is exactly the sort of thing that parents of young children treasure.
Having touched on the funding challenge, we need to ensure that every area has the scope to develop a strategy for thriving that suits local circumstances. Many of our councils—the 152 top-tier authorities—are in partnership arrangements of one kind or another. Some  are council to council, and others reflect outsourced services. That all reflects issues of local need and capacity. Along with the statutory lead member for children’s services and the director of children’s services, the health and wellbeing board has the most scope to join up the offer to get babies the best start in life. Those boards—statutory committees of the local authority—still struggle to assert their role, especially with the NHS, which in my experience is strategically disengaged, despite their role as key partners.
The rearguard action fought by the NHS against making public health a local and accountable service has also inhibited innovation and tied up resources in rolled-over NHS contracts rather than stimulating the reshaping of local services around children. I have seen some outstanding examples of such reshaping, however. I pay tribute to my constituent Dr Jide Menakaya, a leading paediatrician who has led work across the sector in his field of neonatal care in the London borough of Hillingdon to join up children’s services and Sure Start so mums and dads have a seamless experience. However, the system still tends to stand in the way of creativity rather than promoting it.
My suggestion to the Front-Bench team is that, in line with previous asks of our health and wellbeing boards—for example, to produce joint strategies on child mental health—we look at setting a clear expectation for them on a strategy for helping children to thrive in line with the first 1,001 days ambitions. Much of this already exists in different forms at a local level, but for a new parent or an expectant family, it can feel hard to access and fragmented, because it is driven by the disparate duties and funding regimes imposed by Government. In line with the local offer for children with special educational needs and disabilities, a strategic approach to the local offer for the earliest years will deliver greater value for money and, vitally, greater coherence for parents who access it.
The final area that I would like to put forward for consideration is accountability. Successive Governments have adjusted the regulatory environment for the early years, but broadly speaking the two priorities today are school readiness—seen in the regulation of settings such as child minding and nurseries—and the avoidance of harm to children, which is seen in the regulation of child protection and the NHS. We are in a context where resources are extremely stretched—not just money, but, as we have heard from a number of Members, the workforce too—which tends to drive a risk-averse approach in the early years, prioritising the absence of failure, rather than the promotion of innovation. We need to consider how we line up the accountability that we have all talked about with what we are seeking to achieve for our children. My suggestion to Ministers is that we need to look beyond the current inspection regimes and datasets used for performance management, many strengths though they have, and think about how we measure the things involved in a child thriving—the positive health and social outcomes that we want for babies in our country and how we incentivise the behaviour that will deliver them. Time is tight, so I will simply say that we have so many statutory duties in place that will help us deliver that, but so often the holders of those duties lack the autonomy needed to fulfil the aspirations we have. We need a permissive approach from Government.
In conclusion, we need to recognise that much of what we do is world class and of the highest quality, as many parents of young children, including me, can attest, but the regulatory regime still too often expects low standards. Rather than contributing to success, we have a complex funding system that stands in the way of local communities and their leaders delivering value for money and good outcomes for every child. We all want to give our babies the very best start in life. By enabling local leadership, setting high standards and setting people free to innovate, we give ourselves the best chance of levelling up life chances for all our children.

Wera Hobhouse: It has been a real pleasure to listen to all the different contributions made this afternoon. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) and her co-sponsors on securing this debate. One of the observations I want to make is in reference to the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates), who asked why we cannot give women the choice. I absolutely agree. We all know that the most nurturing environment for young children is with their parents. The question then is why this country has one of the poorest maternity pay and leave settlements compared with any other country with a similar economy. We need to look at statutory maternity pay.

Miriam Cates: I completely agree with the hon. Lady. Maternity benefits are certainly something we should look at. As well as that, we have a taxation system that penalises families—to the tune of 20% or 30% for the poorest families—compared with the taxation systems of, say, France, Germany or America. One of the problems we have in this country is that we do not recognise the importance of those early years in terms of protecting families from those costs. That would have a far bigger impact on parents’ ability to choose in those early years.

Wera Hobhouse: I absolutely agree with the hon. Member. We are on the same page. We need to recognise the importance of parenting and the early years and help families of all incomes to make that happen, but the issue mostly strikes families of poorer backgrounds, where women are then being forced into work much earlier than they would like. The Government need to look urgently at that, as well as shared parental leave, which is actually a transfer of parental leave, rather than shared leave. We should look at how we can fix that system, too.
I will speak briefly as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the prevention of childhood trauma. Preventing adverse childhood experiences from occurring is vital, particularly in those first 1,001 days. Within the APPG, we are working to improve understanding of adverse childhood experiences or childhood trauma, how to heal them, and ultimately how to prevent them. It is about breaking that cycle of trauma, which can so often pass from a parent to their child.
Those who experience childhood trauma are two times more likely to develop depression and three times more likely to develop anxiety disorders. Adults who reported four or more adverse childhood experiences had a four to twelvefold increase in alcoholism, drug abuse and suicide attempts, compared with adults who  experienced none of those. Recently, the APPG heard from Josh MacAlister, the chair of the independent review of children’s social care, which produced “The Case for Change”. He made the critical point that we have children in care who become parents, and they often pass their childhood trauma to that next generation of children unless it is treated and recognised. One of the most important things on which I campaign as a Member of Parliament is preventing childhood trauma, recognising trauma in those who experience it later in life and making all our services trauma-informed.
I pay tribute to the WAVE—Worldwide Alternatives to Violence—trust, which does excellent work alongside the APPG. Its 70/30 campaign needs no introduction because it has just reached 500 supporters in the House—an incredible milestone. The campaign aims to reduce child abuse, neglect and other adverse childhood experiences by at least 70% by 2030. Professor Sir Harry Burns, a former chief medical officer, said that
“reducing child maltreatment by 70%...is the minimum acceptable outcome in responding to this unacceptable—and profoundly costly—harm to our youngest children.”
We have all heard in various forms about how important it is to get to childhood trauma. The Government can do much to achieve that, but they must start by increasing early years funding, by appointing a senior Minister for families and the best start in life and by prioritising prevention in the early years.
Earlier this year, I tabled an early-day motion on giving every child the best start in life, which calls on the Government to adopt a comprehensive early years strategy to prevent harm to children before it happens. It has now been signed by 100 Members from across the House. I grateful to all of those who have put their name to it and hope that many more will join them.
I have just two questions for the Minister. Given the overwhelming support for the 70/30 campaign and my EDM, will she give her public support to the campaign today? Will she also commit to meeting the APPG so that we can discuss a way forward and end childhood trauma once and for all? Let us start now to ensure that every family has the full support needed to give their child the best start in life. That would be to all our benefit.

Jim Shannon: I commend the hon. Members for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) and for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) and, in particular, the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom) for sponsoring the debate. I know that the right hon. Lady has pursued this issue in the House for many years, and I am pleased to see the culmination of her championing of it in the funding that the Government have set aside. Congratulations and well done.
As the proud grandfather of five children—Katie-Leigh, Mia and Austin, and two so-called lockdown babies in one-year-old Max, and Freya, who is one-and-a-half—I believe that our babies and our young families have never needed more help and, like others, I have a fervent desire that we in this place get it right. We must consider the pandemic’s effect on lockdown babies who have never attended a mother-and-toddlers group, never learned to play and share with another child, and never sung a nursery song or a rhyme in a group. I believe that will  have a huge impact that they will carry into their early years at school. Others have referred to that, and I want to refer to it as well.
I have spoken in this place about the pandemic’s academic effect on schoolchildren and its mental effect on children. It is right and proper that we also address its effect on babies. We can simply do better. The debate may be England-centric, but the problems faced in the UK mainland mirror those faced by parents and babies in Northern Ireland. I am hopeful that proper funding streams in the mainland will be replicated when the Assembly allocates the Northern Ireland funding received for the levelling-up agenda. It is important that we in Northern Ireland also receive that assistance through the levelling-up agenda.
Action for Children has stated that, in 2018-19, only 57% of children from poorer backgrounds were ready for school at age five compared with 74% of their better-off peers. Its “Closed Doors” report found that, between 2014-15 and 2017-18, the number of children using children’s centres decreased by about 18%. That is a worrying trend, as it is that the numbers fell fastest in the most deprived areas. Those statistics give us concerns and show us that the debate must focus most on the deprived areas where the problems are.
Action for Children’s most recent report found that 82% of parents of children in the nought to five age bracket struggled or were unable to access vital non-childcare and early years services. Some 78% of parents who were unable to access services were worried about potential impacts on themselves or their children. The most common concerns were about children’s development and parents’ own mental health and wellbeing. Other speakers have referred to that, and the fact that we are all saying the same thing based on our constituencies tells us that these issues are clear and real, so the work that Action for Children carries out is essential for giving babies the best start in life.
I am a great supporter, and always have been in all my years as an elected representative, of Home-Start in Northern Ireland. It knows that well trained volunteers complement the early years workforce, significantly contributing to the support that families receive and enabling them to access services when those are most needed. More than 1,500 families are being supported by 300 Home-Start volunteers in 16 communities in Northern Ireland. Newtonards, the main town in my constituency, has a Home-Start facility. During the dark days of the pandemic, more than 200 families were supported by the volunteers, and that was really significant and important work at a critical time. Although volunteers are helping out, funding is needed to enable their work to continue. Funds must be available to charities such as Home-Start to make a real and practical difference to the lives of the most vulnerable—our babies, who are what this debate is really all about.
Some 59% of respondents to a Home-Start inquiry admitted to feelings of loneliness and isolation, and 23% said they needed help with their mental health. After help, 94% said they were more able to cope, so it is clear that intervention can make a difference. The money that the Government have set aside for this strategy and these schemes over the next period can and will make a difference. The next debate is about a separate issue, but some of it will also refer to education and mental health issues.
It is my humble opinion that funding should be allocated to such streams, which allow trained and interested volunteers to go into homes and help with practical issues. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) referred to going to a home where the deprivation and the problems were incredible and hard to take in, but these volunteers help households to find mechanisms to better cope with the pressures of young children. The UK mainland also uses the Home-Start charity, and I am sure the Minister will have cognisance of this great charity and the wonderful work it does.
Time is short, and I am very clear about what you said earlier, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I will come to the crux of my comments. Time has prevented me from talking in depth about the wonderful work carried out in churches. It is no secret, but I want to put it on the record, that what churches do at parent and toddler groups in community halls throughout the country is incredible. We all know those groups, and I have a large number in my constituency—indeed, I think that every church is actively helping parent and toddler groups.
One of my local churches, Newtonards Elim, had to go ahead and open its group again, and it has had massive numbers of parents and childminders simply desperate for company, desperate for their child to talk with others and to interact with them, and desperate for normality. However, if more churches and community facilities are to do these things, more expensive protocols need to be put in place. Perhaps a one-off grant would encourage more churches to take the same step, which can be somewhat daunting due to the way things are. We cannot neglect, we cannot forget and we cannot ignore what churches do and the commitment they give to our constituents.
In conclusion, I believe that we can now safely meet, and if we can, we must. The characters of our little ones are formed in this time, and people need people—children need children, and mums need mums. In this place we need to support, encourage and facilitate the essential component of early years development. Levelling up has promised it, but let us make sure that that levelling-up process reaches out to all parts of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The levelling up starts here, today, through this debate.

Alison Thewliss: I want to pick up where the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) left off and thank all the organisations in our constituencies that provide such vital support to families in their time of need. I have Home-Start in my constituency too, and it does a fantastic job. I also thank the Backbench Business Committee for giving us this debate, as well as all those who have contributed so valuably to it. I particularly thank the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom) for the work she has done on early years and the first 1,001 critical days. We see by its inclusion in the Budget that her work has been recognised by the Government. I would like that money to go further, as I am sure would many hon. Members, but it is certainly a good first step.
Some might consider it slightly odd that the Scottish National party Treasury spokesperson is winding-up this Backbench Business debate, but there is an economic  imperative to the debate. The Women’s Budget Group estimates that 1.7 million women are prevented from taking on extra hours as a result of lack of childcare, which leads to a £28.2 billion loss in economic output. Those on the Treasury Bench should consider that when they think about childcare. It is not a burden in any way; it is an investment and should be considered as such. The Nordic countries have much better outcomes and more equal societies, and they invest much more in their early years.
The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) said that Wales is the best place in the world to grow up. I dispute that—certainly Scotland is up there as well, and we are doing a great deal on that front. The Scottish Government baby box is emblematic of that investment. A box is given to every new family, regardless of their circumstances, and it provides them with all the essentials they need. The feedback on that is overwhelmingly good, and around 186,000 baby boxes will have been delivered to families by its fourth anniversary. All families will have benefited from that, with all babies entering the world with a degree of equality, even when other things are not equal, as we know.
I was glad—well, I suppose I was not glad—to hear the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) speaking about the impact of poverty on young people; I feel that not everybody has reflected on that crucial part of the debate. Significant inequality is growing in the UK. Such things do not happen by accident; they happen as a result of specific policies designed by the Government and inflicted on the people of these islands. Let us take, for example, the two-child limit for tax credit and the rape clause that is part of that. By 2 April 2021, 308,520 families had been affected by that policy, and more will be affected as it rolls out. It discriminates against children in a family, based solely on the order in which they are born. Those children cannot help when they are born. They are brought into families, many of whom have babies because they think having a child is a blessing, but they may end up in financial circumstances that mean they find it much more difficult to get by. That is a real barrier to many families, and it is causing severe poverty across the UK. The UK Government should scrap that policy once and for all.
Hon. Members have referred to the £20 uplift in universal credit, which has been a lifeline for many families throughout the pandemic. By not keeping that uplift, and by reducing the taper on universal credit—something I welcome—the UK Government have divided households into the worthy and the unworthy. The taper rate affects those who are in work. I am glad for them and it is right, but the Government are only fixing the harm that their predecessors caused by adjusting the taper rate, and there is no help for those who are out of work, many of whom have caring responsibilities, illness or disability. There is nothing whatsoever for those on legacy benefits whose children also need that help. All of this is at a time when costs in shops are increasing and fuel prices skyrocketing. What impact will that have on children in those homes in the cold winter that is coming? What impact does the lack of fresh food and a warm home have on the lives of the babies we are talking about?
Sir Harry Burns, the former Chief Medical Officer for Scotland, has spoken poignantly about the lack of a sense of control, and the impact that that has on  people’s lives. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) talked about a household he visited, and many more households like that now exist after the past 10 years. Many families have a lack of control over their lives, because they do not have the financial resources to build a safe environment for them and their children. That lack of control, certainty, or of knowing what will happen when an unexpected bill or illness could bring everything down around your ears, is no way to give babies the best start in life, and neither is it to have families reliant on foodbanks and charities. That only adds to the trauma mentioned by the hon. Members for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), for Newcastle upon Tyne North, and for Strangford (Jim Shannon). These families are growing up in trauma because they do not know how to cope. They do not have enough money to make ends meet, and living in such circumstances day after day means trauma for those parents, and trauma for those children. The Government should recognise that when they talk about recognising trauma, and consider how they can lessen it.
I want to talk briefly about the impact on ethnic minority families. There is a significant cost to them that is not often recognised, and that is the cost of the immigration system. Many families that come to me are finding life more and more of a struggle because they have to pay for visas, which are extremely expensive and a huge family cost burden. I cannot imagine how those families in relatively low-paid work make ends meet. They often cannot get the family support that the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates) so valued having around; they cannot get their mother-in-law, their mother or their sister over to give that support with their babies because they are not allowed visas. I have seen many families really upset by their inability to have a family member there at that most important time in life—and worse, I have seen families where there has been a baby loss and all that mum wanted was to have her mother there, but the Home Office said no. We need to recognise the wider implications of family support in all Departments.
I also want to talk about the impact of no recourse to public funds. There is a lack of data about how many constituents in Glasgow Central are affected by no recourse to public funds, but that immigration condition on benefits means that many families are not entitled to the same support as their neighbours, and they find it harder to make ends meet. I have had families come back for support for school uniforms and for presents for Christmas. They are working very hard, but not hard enough, because they cannot earn enough money. That will only get worse under the Nationality and Borders Bill.
I would be doing the all-party parliamentary group on infant feeding and inequalities a disservice if I did not talk about breastfeeding. Breastfeeding rates in Scotland are really improving, because we have a comprehensive plan to improve them. Almost two thirds of babies born in Scotland last year were breastfed for at least some time after their birth. More than half of babies were being breastfed at 10 to 14 days of age, which has increased from 44% in 2002-03. There are increases across the board. There has always been a marked gap in deprivation rates, with more deprived communities tending to breastfeed less. With the investment and comprehensive planning that the Scottish Government have put into breastfeeding support, that gap is beginning to narrow in Scotland, which is very positive.
I have two brief questions for the Minister on that. The “Becoming Breastfeeding Friendly” report was published in Scotland in 2019, but it has not yet been published in England. When is that going to happen, and when will the infant feeding survey be reinstated and published? We cannot track that data.
There is a great deal more that I would like to have said in this debate, but I urge the UK Government to look to Scotland and the comprehensive plans that are being put in place there, and to improve services for everybody who requires them.

Alex Norris: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom) and my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) for securing this debate. The collective case that they made was weighty, and I think there was universal agreement; I certainly did not disagree with anything that was said.
I associate myself with the comments made by the hon. Member for Richmond Park about the importance and the centrality of good health visiting. She also made very interesting points about lockdown and covid that were shared by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire, whose statistic that seven in 10 parents feel that they have not had enough support was sobering. That shows the scale of the challenge that we have in building back.
Of course, the right hon. Member has also gifted us her rich report, which we are discussing, in many ways, today. I want to take this opportunity to reiterate in public what I have said to her in private about the Opposition’s support for her. She had real success at the Budget, which we were all heartened by. We know there is more to do, but she is clearly doing something right and, as I say, we will be with her along the way.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North made a stark and powerful speech about poverty. She could have changed Newcastle upon Tyne North to Nottingham North—my constituency—and the entire thing would have read across, but particularly the cruelty of pre-ordaining a child’s destiny at their birth.
The hon. Members for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) talked about turning the strategy into a local plan and putting an emphasis on local authorities or health and wellbeing boards—in my case, I think integrated care systems is the model. I proposed that in a new clause that I tabled to the Health and Care Bill, which the Government were not minded to accept. I hope that we might be able to work together on that, and that we might get something in the Bill to that effect in its remaining stages. I think that would be a very good way to do that.
I pay special tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), my predecessor in this role, because so much of our policy is her policy and I have just been carrying on that work. The point she made about the environment was one I had not heard her make before. I am always fearful that children can sometimes grow up in hopeless  environments and the future of the planet is one of the things that restricts hope. That is a very important point and we have a responsibility in this place to address it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) made the point that, if in doubt, look at Wales. In many ways, that is very much the way to go.
Previously, and certainly for the last 10 years, the place to start when talking about early intervention and the best start in life was the breakthrough 2011 report on early intervention by my friend and constituency predecessor, Graham Allen. Happily, the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire is providing him with some good competition with her report. As we have seen in the debate, that has established a cross-party consensus to make good on this. The report confirms and builds on what we know about how critical the first 1,001 days are.
In my maiden speech four-and-a-half years ago, I talked about similar themes for my community and how these challenges are cyclical, and said that the way to break those cycles is to intervene as early as possible. A healthy pregnancy is very important for mum, but also for the baby’s development. Beyond specific dangers such as smoking, alcohol or drugs, we know that stress can cause challenges for babies. That is an awful lot of pressure on mums, so health visitor support is really important, as the hon. Member for Richmond Park said. The next two years are crucial, too, in setting out how a child’s life is likely to go. The hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) made important points about adverse childhood experiences, which we know have a lifelong impact. As I say, the case for change is well established, but we have to have concrete things to do and the report and the six action areas effectively laid out that route for us.
I want to briefly address Sure Start. We know that Sure Start prevented hospitalisations, impacted children all through their adolescence, improved mental health, helped particularly in the poorest communities and, of course, made major, long-lasting savings for the NHS. The tragedy is that any savings made by cutting those services will be hoovered up in costs to the NHS. It is dreadful public policy. I say that not to litigate the events of the last 10 years, but because at the moment councils are setting their budgets. Councils in cities such as mine will be making decisions that mean children’s centres will again be lost. So we have not adequately addressed this yet. It was not adequately addressed in the support for local authorities in the Budget. Family hubs are very welcome and I accept the point that they are not a like-for-like replacement, but my point is that we are weakening our approach in this area by filling the bath at the top and then draining it at the bottom. I think that is a big mistake.
I will make a final point on what I consider to be our greatest hurdle in this endeavour: the public finances and the Treasury. This is the sort of spending that we know—the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner said this—benefits future generations. Politically, I think we can get our heads around that. The previous Labour Government showed that we can do that. The growing consensus is that we want to make long-term investments, even if we are not in this place seeing the benefits from them. However, I do not think we have quite got there yet with regard to the Treasury. Clearly,  significant progress was made at the Budget—I want that to be recognised—but we need models that, for the Treasury’s purposes of balancing the budget and having good responsible public finances, also recognise that investing now can give returns in a decade. Even if we are not able to get the pound and penny of where that return will be, we know that it will happen. I do not think we are quite there yet and I would be very interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts on that.
The report by the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire has set us a real road map. A political consensus is being established around it. However, we now need to know the long-term commitment. On the Labour Benches, we are committed in finance and in public policy terms to make the investments here. The Government showed at the Budget that they are starting to get to that place, but I hope to hear from the Minister that that is for the longer term and not just a one-Budget commitment. The prize is so great for our nation. As a result, our ambition must be great, too.

Maggie Throup: I thank the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom) and the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) for securing this important debate. I also thank all hon. Members for their important contributions; it has been a very worthwhile, informative and forward-looking debate.
Ensuring that every baby gets the best start in life is of central importance to the Government. The critical 1,001 days of a child’s life lay the building blocks for lifelong emotional and physical health. By investing in supporting the youngest members of our society and the families who care for them, the Government will deliver on their ambition of levelling up health outcomes across the country.
The health and wellbeing of parents and carers is important for the healthy development of their babies. Approximately one in five mums and one in 10 dads experience mental health problems during the 1,001 critical days of their baby’s life. Poor mental health can impact on their parents’ ability to bond with their baby and meet the baby’s emotional needs. Later development is heavily influenced by the loving attachment that babies have to their parents or carers, and there is a wealth of evidence that poor parental mental health can lead to worse outcomes for young children.
It is vital that parents and carers have access to the help and support that they need to give their baby the very best start in life. The Government’s vision is for every parent and carer to have access to high-quality universal services in their local areas. That is set out in, “The best start for life: a vision for the 1,001 critical days”, published by the Early Years Healthy Development Review in March. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire for that inspirational work. Thanks to her dedication, the Government are delivering on six priority action areas that will realise that vision.
First, we will ensure that all parents and carers have access to clear information about the Start for Life offer and family services in their area that they can access virtually and physically. Secondly, we are championing  family hubs and working with local authorities to make them a place where families can access universal Start for Life services.
Thirdly, we are designing digital, virtual and telephone services around the needs of families with babies, including digitising the red book. Fourthly, we are developing a modern, skilled workforce to meet the changing needs of families with babies. We are doing that by looking at new ways to support, train and retain the skilled professionals that we need.
Fifthly, we are working across the system to ensure that local services are high quality, considering how improved data can enhance the evaluation of outcomes and how inspection and feedback from parents and carers can drive excellence. Finally, we are working with local areas to encourage them to nominate a leader with responsibility for Start for Life services and ensuring that Start for Life is at the heart of policy making at a national level.
Alongside the Early Years Healthy Development Review, the Government are implementing a wide range of policies to improve child health. That includes the most ambitious child obesity plan in the world, the transformation of children’s mental health and maternity services and a world-leading immunisation programme.
Investing in the 1,001 critical days is the most important long-term investment that we can make. Failure to invest in that critical period comes at a great social and economic cost. Adverse experiences at the start of life are linked to negative outcomes later in life, as a number of hon. Members have mentioned. It is estimated that late intervention amounts to a cost of £17 billion a year in England and Wales. Investing in prevention and early intervention is a much better use of taxpayer money. That is why the Budget announced a £500 million investment package to transform support for babies and families.
The Government will invest more than £80 million in expanding the network of family hubs, improving access to a wide range of integrated support services for families with babies and children. A further £10 million will support local authorities to publish clear Start for Life offers, helping parents and carers to understand the services available to them locally, while £100 million will be invested in rolling out bespoke parent and infant mental health support, helping to nurture parent and infant relationships and improving access to support for new and expectant parents.
There will be £50 million available to local authorities to establish multi-component breastfeeding support services in line with local needs, ensuring that parents receive the help that they need where and when they need it. There will be £50 million to fund evidence-based parenting programmes, which will support parents and carers to have positive interactions with their children. Seventy-five upper-tier local authorities in England will benefit from this funding. The evidence and learning from this investment will help to improve services across England where they are most needed.
An additional £10 million will be available to trial and evaluate innovative workforce models in a small number of local authorities. This will enable local authorities to bring together and train staff under the clinical supervision of health visitors to provide babies and families with the high-quality, timely support that they need. It will also support future workforce reform.

Alison Thewliss: Will the Minister give way?

Maggie Throup: I am short of time, so I will continue.
Some 300,000 of the most vulnerable families will be supported with an extra £200 million boost to the Government’s supporting families programme, which helps families through complex issues that could lead to family breakdown. In addition to the £500 million investment to transform support for families, the Government will provide more than £2 million per year to continue the holiday activities and food programme, providing healthy food and enriched activities for disadvantaged children in England and delivering our flexible childcare fund commitments.
Before I draw my remarks to a close, I would like to address some issues that have been raised this afternoon. The hon. Member for Richmond Park raised the issue of health visitors. As I have outlined, £10 million has been allocated to trial and evaluate new workforce models. The specific number of health visitors and case- loads is a locally determined decision based on local health needs, so the number and ratio of health visitors support staff will vary. She also raised perinatal mental health, which has been recognised in the spending review with £100 million allocated to rolling out bespoke parent-infant mental health support.
My right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire rightly stated that babies’ needs should always be at the heart of our work. She also highlighted some new ways of working that have developed as a result of the pandemic, from Camden’s Bump to Baby programme to Parent Talk, and the benefits that physical and virtual support can offer in reaching out to even more families.
My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates) said that we are building back better for babies. She was quite right. I welcome her support for family hubs and her recognition that they will provide support and services from conception to the age of 19 and to parents and carers.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North also asked about family hubs. In the Budget, as I said, the Government announced a further £82 million to create a network of family hubs. Each of the 75 selected local authorities will receive transformational funding to support the change process of moving to a family hub model.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) brought a great deal of experience to the debate, as did the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds). The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) raised the important issue of breastfeeding. I am delighted that the Chancellor has announced £50 million to establish multi-component breastfeeding support services in line with local needs.

Alex Davies-Jones: Will the Minister give way?

Maggie Throup: I must finish; I am sorry.
In conclusion, we will continue to work across the whole Start for Life system to improve health and development outcomes for our youngest citizens. We must do everything in our power to support all families to give their baby the very best start in life.

Rosie Winterton: I call Sarah Olney for a very brief wind-up.

Sarah Olney: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank all hon. Members who have spoken in our debate, which has been really interesting. I particularly thank the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom) for all her work.
It was great to hear from the Minister about how much has already been delivered and the spending that has been announced. I thank the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) for all her support in getting the debate together. She made some very interesting points about employment discrimination. I also want to pick up on what the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) said about the importance of climate change.
The hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates) made some very interesting comments about the economic impacts of motherhood. I was particularly struck by her comment that children are not an economic inconvenience; I agree 100%. I thank the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) for sharing his personal experience, which was really thought-provoking. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) for mentioning trauma and adverse childhood experiences.
All hon. Members have added a really interesting dimension to the debate. I thank them all.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the matter of giving every baby the best start in life.

School-based Counselling Services

Rosie Winterton: There have been some additions to the speaking list, so I will introduce a time limit for Back-Bench speeches, which is likely to be seven minutes, following the opening speech from the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown).

Nick Brown: I beg to move,
That this House has considered the provision of school-based counselling services.
Let me start by saying how grateful I am to the Backbench Business Committee for affording me almost half a day for this topic. I thank my friends throughout the House for making the case to the Committee, and I particularly thank my friend the right hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), who has joined me in sponsoring the neutral proposition on which the debate is based.
It is estimated that in England, one in eight young people—13% of those aged between five and 19—are living with diagnosable mental health disorders. They include depression, anxiety, and conduct disorder, which is a type of behavioural problem. While the announcement earlier this year of extra funding for young people’s mental health services is welcome, it is targeted specifically at the extra dimensions of the problem caused by covid within schools. The problem was there before. It has grown, and it needs to be addressed. The services were under pressure before the pandemic, and they remain so now.
The Children’s Society tells us that 75% of young people are not receiving the help that they need, and 34% of those who manage to be referred to NHS services are not accepted for treatment. Public Health England says that in the north-east the number of pupils with social, emotional and mental health needs is higher than the national average, and the same is true in respect of hospital admissions resulting from 10 to 24-year-olds self-harming. This is an issue for the country, but it is a particular issue for our region.

Catherine McKinnell: I apologise for interrupting an excellent and very timely speech, and congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing the debate. I do not know whether he has seen the data, but does he share my concern that there seems to have been a much steeper increase in the mental health challenges faced by girls throughout their secondary school years than has been the case among boys? By the time they leave secondary school, girls have had almost twice as many contacts with mental health services as boys. Many of those challenges could potentially have been avoided if there were proper counselling in schools, for which I am sure my right hon. Friend will be making the case. Moreover, if boys are more reluctant to come forward for that help, is that not also a problem demonstrated by the data?

Nick Brown: Whatever the cause, the problem is clear enough, and it needs to be addressed. My hon. Friend is right to make the point, and she is also right to suggest that the roots of this, particularly in our region and the city that we both represent, are to be found in deprivation and in poverty. That is a particular feature of our  region, and my hon. Friend spoke about it very movingly in the earlier debate. We know that mental health issues have a disproportionate impact on the most vulnerable children, and the roots of that are in social deprivation. It is a particular problem in my own constituency. In 2014, 27% of children in east Newcastle lived in poverty; the latest figure, for 2019-20, is 38%, and it is increasing year on year.
The north-east of England is bearing the brunt of the increase in child poverty, with all 12 local authorities within the north-east region in the top 20 authorities that have seen the highest increase across England as a whole. The last Labour Government boosted the life chances and welfare of children, and I am proud to being a part of that. Policies such as Sure Start, working tax credits and well-funded family-friendly public services ensured that every child had a positive start in life. How far we have slid from that, and how misguided and mistaken we were to get ourselves into that position.
I particularly want to make the case for services for the disabled, whether they have a physical disability or mental health problems. I recently met representatives of the National Deaf Children’s Society who told me about the disproportionate impact that the coronavirus lockdowns have had on the mental health of deaf children. Measures taken to fight covid, such as the widespread wearing of face masks, particularly in the classroom, have led to communication difficulties for deaf children. As a result, 60% of deaf children have indicated that their mental health has worsened, and 58% have reported feeling isolated and lonely. Many felt that services relied too much on the telephone for booking appointments, and others did not like the fact that some appointments were now available only on the telephone.
I also want to say something about the special needs and significant mental health problems that child refugees face when they enter the United Kingdom and, eventually, the school system. I have received a substantial amount of casework regarding the situation in Afghanistan, including many requests for help to leave that country. I do my best to help my constituents, and I know that other MPs are in the same position. On the point about ring-fenced funding for mental health support in schools, I have written to the Home Secretary on behalf of my constituents and I look forward to receiving a response. It is a specific problem and it requires a specific response.
Existing provision of schools-based counselling is patchy. There is currently no legal requirement on schools in England to provide counselling services. There is, however, a specific requirement for such provision in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I understand that the Department for Education does not routinely collect school workforce data that would allow us to identify how many schools directly employed their own counsellors. Some employ their own, and some link up with other schools and share a counsellor. We know that provision is varied. Some have more casual arrangements with the voluntary sector or local authority partners. Some simply do not offer any school-based provision, and instead refer children to an external service.
There is a demand to make schools-based counselling services more consistent. More than two thirds of young people would prefer to be able to access mental health support without going through their GP. The Government’s  roll-out of mental health support teams goes some way towards meeting the lower-level mental health support needs of children by offering group work and cognitive behavioural therapy for emerging issues. However, by 2023, the new teams will reach only about 30% of schools and colleges, leaving a worrying 70% with no additional early help or support other than funds that may be accessed directly via the education recovery plan.

Jim Shannon: There are many charities, particularly children’s charities, across the United Kingdom that I can think of, such as the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, Barnardo’s and Mind, that have a great grasp and knowledge of where the real priorities need to be. Does the right hon. Gentleman feel that when the Government reply, they should listen to the organisations that know, and then deliver a strategy that can help with these situations?

Nick Brown: I have a relatively open mind on the particular route that should be taken to meet these issues head-on, and I have no ideological objection to a role for the voluntary sector or for those who want to contribute, but—at least in England—the state must take a lead. Things cannot be left as they are. I believe that school-based counselling, regardless of which organisation provides it, could fill the gap between those mental health support teams in schools and the national health service’s child and adolescent mental health services. There are limits to voluntarism, of course, and we would need the people delivering the service in the schools to have some form of qualification and understanding of what they are doing.
The British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy makes that point and is campaigning on these issues. Schools-based counselling is a proven intervention for children and young people experiencing psychological distress. Some 50% of mental health disorders are present by the age of 14, increasing to 75% by the age of 18, so early intervention is key, as it is with many of these issues.

Kevan Jones: My right hon. Friend has just mentioned the statistics about early intervention. In the previous debate we were talking about investment in children at a young age. Does he agree that targeted investment in these young people is not just good for those individuals but makes economic common sense, in that the payback will be that we have productive and stable members of society?

Nick Brown: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. It also relieves pressure on the national health service in the longer term, because the NHS tends to end up as the service of last resort—a role it shares with the police, equally unfairly in my view.
I commend the efforts of the Tyne & Wear Citizens group, which has been working to raise the profile of schools-based counselling and with which I have had regular meetings. The group has set out three core principles that a successful schools-based counselling programme ought to follow: first, that services should be co-operative and inclusive, including the use of digital wellbeing tools, telephone counselling and face-to-face sessions at school or external venues; secondly, that services should be collaborative and liaise with external agencies such as social services and the police where it is  appropriate to do so and, thirdly, that services should be consistent, provided by those trained on a nationally recognised course, registered with a professional body and experienced in working with school-age children.
In concluding my contribution to this debate, I want to say something about the schools-based counselling programme in place in the Newcastle East NEAT Academy Trust in my constituency. I have nothing but praise for the project itself and the enthusiastic support that it is receiving from the broader schools community; my right hon. Friend will remember it well, because he used to be a councillor for the local government ward that it serves.
The project has found clear signs of improvement in educational attainment for around one in three of the pupils who received counselling. There was a significant improvement in pupils’ achieving their personal goals, with an 85% improvement in reported progress towards achieving these goals. No child reported a sharp deterioration in progress.
The counsellor—not a local government-type councillor but a schools-based counsellor—in the trial that is taking place has told me that embedding the counselling service as part of the whole-school approach is vital to removing the stigma around mental health and promoting a culture shift in the community. She has reported high levels of engagement in the programme and has stressed that demand is increasing. In order to reach more children and young people in crisis and to prevent future mental health issues from developing, I am convinced that the project has made a strong case for more school-based counsellors delivering interventions.
Were the Government to continue to take an interest in this way, it should be possible to achieve something more. I give them credit for tentatively seeing the need to intervene in this area and I hope that today’s debate, across the Floor of the House, reinforces their appetite for further action.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Rosie Winterton: I am introducing a seven-minute time limit. I call Tracey Crouch.

Tracey Crouch: It is an honour to be able to speak in this debate, and I congratulate the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown) on securing it and the Backbench Business Committee on granting the House time to discuss such an important matter.
I want to start with an admission. When I first became an MP, I did not think that schools should be involved in matters that were beyond the core curriculum, such as mental health. My mind was changed pretty swiftly in two ways. First, my own brush with anxiety and depression in 2012 enlightened me about mental health and cast aside any unconscious prejudice I may have had about who is affected by poor mental wellbeing. The second came through the privilege that we, as Members, have of visiting schools in our constituency and seeing that education is holistic, child-centred and rarely textbook—I ask the House to forgive the pun.
Having had my lightbulb moment, I now feel a responsibility to stand up in this Chamber to advocate for better mental health services for our children. Our child and adolescent mental health services are, I am afraid, overwhelmed, and we could, and perhaps should, have another three-hour debate about that. However, while that remains the case, the system of support for our children needs to be widened, and that is where our schools come in.
Reading the briefings for this debate, I was struck by the statistics of deteriorating mental wellbeing among our children, especially following covid, but the stat that made me feel sick was in the brief provided by YoungMinds, which noted:
“In 2017, suicide was the most common cause of death for both boys and girls aged between 5 and 19”.
That made me want to cry. There are so many heartbreaking stories of children whose lives have been robbed by a disease of which they had no control, but suicide should be preventable, if we have the right awareness, training and essential support services in place. No one, but especially no child, should lose their life to suicide.
Prior to this debate, I sought some thoughts from a handful of schools in my constituency, both primary and secondary, just as a snapshot reflection of need and provision. Anything I say from here onwards is not a criticism of the services that they, as schools, provide—quite the opposite. They are doing their absolute best, despite all the challenges that they face, which I hope to outline in what is left of my speech. It is clear that schools can play a vital role in supporting pupils’ mental health, given that they provide routine and structure to those in their daily care. However, as the need increases, it is clear that the existing provision, which in itself varies, is inadequate in meeting the need from not just a quantitative perspective, but a quality one.
Access to school counsellors may well be an integral part of ensuring that young people have access to support, but only if a school can afford to purchase the school counsellor. Most of my local secondary schools are in some form of academy trust and therefore they are able to pool resources and provide a school counselling service. One trust told me that, despite having a counsellor who works at one secondary each morning and one primary in the afternoon, and another secondary that buys in external support for three days a week, it is nowhere near enough. Another trust told me that it is lucky to have built up a specialist team of experienced professionals to plug the gap when other agencies are not on board. They have a qualified counsellor and a full-time safeguarding lead, but still their young people are crying out for help and, with the greatest respect to those working their socks off in schools, what they absolutely do not need is to be told there is a two-year wait to see CAMHS when a pupil is self-harming or has suicidal thoughts.
It is useful to be able to provide that support where the resources can be pooled to do it, but for a small school with a published admission number of 180, like one of the primary schools I reached out to, the funding is simply not available. If anyone thinks that there is not an acute need in primary schools for wellbeing support services, they are fools. I have heard as many stories of self-harm, suicidal thoughts and depression in our younger age groups as I have in secondary. But if they cannot afford a counsellor or a family liaison officer, they are  left to rely on a mental health lead, which is basically a teacher still doing their job and all the things required on a curriculum, but having completed an online learning course. That course qualifies them to deal with mental health conditions as much as my FA level 1 coaching badge qualifies me to manage England.
I applaud the Government focus on this issue in guidance and, of course, the increase in funding for mental health services, but the sad truth is that more is needed. First, we need ringfenced funding. One head said to me that
“if you put additional funding into our budgets it would get lost so whilst I hate this process, look at a ring fenced amount for the next 5 years to allow us to specifically fund mental health provision in schools”.
Secondly, as suggested by one of my local schools, the training of mental health first aid should be mandatory in schools. They legally have to provide physical first aiders; why is it not the same with mental health? The training needs to be funded and not just the preserve of schools that can pay £300 per person and release staff for two days of training.
Thirdly, the Government need to fund the provision of curriculum resources to adequately teach mental health and wellbeing skills. As a strong advocate of the benefit of mindfulness in schools, I believe that the welcome but patchy initiatives that help to support wellbeing while building resilience should become standard, funded practice. It does not have to be mindfulness—one of my schools has a pat-a-dog, which has had a remarkable impact on student wellbeing—but aligning mental health and wellbeing to the curriculum, as we do with physical education, would be enormously positive.
We need to reflect on the role of designated mental health lead. I am afraid my local schools think that although it was designed with good intentions, it will end up like the role of designated safeguarding lead, which is done by a teacher, usually someone on the senior leadership team who, by the nature of their position, already has significant responsibility.
Finally, it is clear that schools are really good places to host hubs for wellbeing, so why not capitalize on that view and ensure that each cluster of schools has access to a mental health worker, a social worker, a school nurse and even a police community support officer, to deliver resource right into the heart of the community, for the most vulnerable within it?

Munira Wilson: The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech and I agree with pretty much everything she is saying. On hubs, does she agree that some children and young people will not feel comfortable and will not want to access services through their school, for a variety of reasons? Community-based mental health support hubs that are a one-stop-shop for a variety of services are an essential complement to school-based counselling services.

Tracey Crouch: I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s intervention. We need to reduce the stigma around mental health and give people the confidence to access support services wherever they are, whether that is in a school or a community hub.
It is clear that we stand on the edge of a young people’s mental health crisis, and more so because of covid, but it could also be that because of covid we have  the chance to make fundamental change rather than minor tweaks here or there. I have a great deal of respect for the Minister and know that he will hear what colleagues say this afternoon. I hope he will go back to the Department, gather together all the relevant stakeholders to urgently review provision in the light of the increasing need, and then propose radical reform to support better in-house provision, because it takes less than a few minutes of listening to teachers in our constituencies to understand how urgently that is needed.

Sharon Hodgson: I am happy to speak in this debate on school-based counselling services and thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown) for securing this important debate.
A silent epidemic is sweeping through our schools and through some of our young people. It is a wide-reaching and indiscriminate epidemic, yet we are so often unwilling to discuss it. I am, of course, talking about the mental health crisis in young people. A recent NHS report published in 2021 found that the number of young people with probable mental health disorders had been rising steadily since 2017. Currently, an estimated one in six young people between the ages of six and 19 have a probable mental health disorder. The pandemic was hard for us all, but it could be said that it was felt hardest by our young people, who were cut off from school, part-time jobs and their friends. Worse still, the pandemic and chronic underfunding of our NHS caused one of the largest backlogs of mental health patients that this country has ever seen. The situation is dire and changes are long overdue.
As children return to school, we must use this opportunity to build a more welcoming and available system for young people with mental health problems. While mental health problems can afflict anyone from all walks of life, for those children whose homes have unstable economic or familial dynamics, and when those disorders are also compounded by fear and stigma, schools are often the only outlet, the only safe place. Schools must be part of the solution.
I am sure that all of us here know someone who has suffered from mental health issues. Tragically, some may also end up taking their own lives as a result. It is in times such as these that we are often forced to ask ourselves: what if we had known sooner; what if they had got the support they needed. That is the essence of what I am putting forward today? What if we tackle mental health complications early? No child should be left to begin their life with baggage—a weight to bear for the rest of their lives. Schools provide us with unparalleled access into the minds of still developing young people and it is here that we can really make a difference.
The current system to tackle young mental health concerns is outdated. A 2014 report by the Health Committee found that the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services has a complex funding arrangement and a tier-based model that fails to truly integrate the range of organisations tasked with safeguarding young people. We must show that we have listened to those families who have struggled to access mental health support during the pandemic, when pressures on children and families were at an all-time high.
While I welcome the Government’s plan to expand mental health provisions in schools, progress is painfully slow. I also fear that their current solution of increasing mental health support teams creates a “missing middle” of children who would not qualify for CAMHS, but whose needs are too complex for MHSTs. Yet again, the Government have put forward a plan that is unambitious and riddled with holes. We need a system that is more straightforward and co-operative and that supports all needs.
Employing counsellors in every school could be a viable solution to this, and it is an extremely popular measure among the public, especially those with children under the age of 18. Only around 61% of schools and colleges in England offer counselling services, more often than not run by under-qualified counsellors. That is not good enough. Concerns about the number of trained counsellors in schools and whether they are mandatory should be addressed by the Government.
Citizens UK has estimated that hiring the required 13,394 fully trained, school-based British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy accredited counsellors would cost only £554 million a year. That compares with the £1.4 billion per year currently spent on CAMHS. School counsellors in every school would centralise services, reaching the “missing middle” as well as help the 65% of pupils not currently supported under the MHST model.
I am by no means suggesting that we should spend less on mental health services, but the current unsubstantiated spending does nothing to improve services. We need focused care that identifies the problem, communicates with students in the most appropriate way and co-operates with all local institutions.
For far too long, mental health services have been shunted to the back of the queue and not taken seriously. I was shocked to discover that, when questioned in July, the former Health Minister, the right hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Ms Dorries), revealed that counselling services for schools were not yet mandatory and she did not indicate any plan to make mental health services mandatory. Instead, she indicated that schools should be given the “freedom to decide”. The mental health of our children is not a subject for party dogma over freedom. Would any responsible parent send their child to school without someone who is, at the very least, first aid trained with a first aid kit to hand. If their child then fell over in the playground or had an allergic reaction, they would hope that someone would be there to help them, so why should mental health be any different?
What I, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East, and I think all of us in the Chamber are advocating is this: a safe environment for young people where mental health is no longer the unknown or unaccounted for. If we are ever to achieve genuine parity of esteem, that is the very least we should be doing.

Robert Halfon: It was an honour to present before the Backbench Business Committee with my friend, the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown).
The repercussions of the pandemic will have a significant impact on children and young people. As the mental health charity, Mind, has pointed out, covid-19 will leave a “deep and lasting scar” on the mental health of millions. The statistics are grim; some have already been cited. In March, my Committee heard from the Royal College of Psychiatrists that there had been a “massive” rise in children self-harming, with a 7% rise among girls aged 11 to 16 since 2017. In 2019-20, the number of children being referred for mental health treatment soared by 60%. We all see these awful statistics in our constituencies. A mother in Harlow came to me and told me that her otherwise healthy child had started compulsively washing her hands until they were raw and bleeding since lockdown and not being at school.
Are our children getting the help that they need? The Children’s Commissioner suggested that the number of children accessing the treatment that they need has increased by just 4%. I believe that there are ways in which we can turn the tide. Let us rocket-boost the Government’s proposals to put mental health professionals in every school, quicker than the current plans. The What Works Centre for Wellbeing has identified that good mental health and wellbeing at age 14 to 15 has a significant impact on educational attainment at age 18. The Department for Education shows that pupils with better emotional wellbeing at age seven were more than one term ahead of pupils with poorer emotional wellbeing. I have seen the impact of organisations such as Place2Be in schools in Harlow, such as Stewards Academy, which benefits from its services.
This is not just about the provision of mental health; it is also about prevention and resilience. Last week, I visited a remarkable school—Newham Collegiate Sixth Form Centre—where I met students and the headteacher, who described the resilience and preventive work that the school does. It employs a coach to work with students to develop techniques to conquer their anxieties. School assemblies are used to teach the tools needed to manage highly pressured environments, using examples presented by sporting personalities. In private study periods, the desks are set up to resemble an exam hall to help pupils to become familiar with the setting. That is the kind of arsenal that should be replicated in schools around the country.
The second element of prevention must be considering extending the school day for extracurricular activities. I welcome the Government’s £5 billion for educational catch-up, but this should also be about extracurricular activities, because we know that young people who participate in after-school clubs are 20% less likely to suffer from a mental health disorder. The Education Policy Institute found that a longer school day increases educational attainment by two to three months, and the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport found that an extended school day can boost numeracy skills by 29%.
Why on earth will the Department for Education not at least pilot proper experiments of extended school days in some disadvantaged areas of the country, using civil society to provide those extracurricular activities, so that we can really see the difference they make; and then make that case to the Treasury? Headteachers such as the head at Newham would love to be able to offer their students extracurricular activities, just as the private schools do, but they simply do not have the funding to do so.
The Local Government Association estimates that the annual cost of mental health problems in England is about £119 billion, but rolling out counselling services to all state-funded secondary schools could cost £100 million per annum. That would provide for access to a school counsellor for at least two days a week for more than 90% of schools. It makes economic sense to invest in prevention, given that most mental health problems emerge before the age of 25.
Finally, we know that social media is a wrecking ball for young people’s mental health and wellbeing; it is damaging all of us, but particularly young people. Research from the Education Policy Institute and the Prince’s Trust found the damage that social media is doing to teenagers’ mental health, and 79% of Barnardo’s practitioners reported that children between the ages of 10 and 15 have accessed unsuitable or harmful content. One in three girls said that they were unhappy with their personal appearance by the age of 14.
The links are clear. Social media providers should not be allowed to duck their responsibilities, and I urge the children’s Minister to work with the Treasury to introduce a mental health levy for social media giants so that they can take responsibility for what is happening to our young children. Ofcom published a report earlier this year that stated that the revenue of social media companies is £4.8 billion. Introducing a 2% levy could create a funding pot of around £100 million, which could be distributed to schools to provide mental health support and digital skills training for our young people to build the resilience and online safety skills that they need. If the social media companies knew that they had to pay the levy, they might at last behave more responsibly towards our young people.
Social media firms and tech giants must do more given that much of the problem is caused by the very apps and platforms that they have built. We must rapidly deliver the commitments in the mental health Green Paper to ensure that there is a mental health professional based in every school—sooner rather than later. Priority should be given to initiatives that support prevention and teach resilience, as I highlighted with the example of Newham Collegiate Sixth Form Centre. Only by doing so can we deal with this epidemic and ensure that our children and young people emerge from the pandemic resilient and able to climb the education ladder of opportunity.

Kevan Jones: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown) on securing this debate, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee. Talking about mental health is something that we are doing more of in this place, and that is good.
In August 2019, the Children’s Society produced “The Good Childhood Report”, which found that an increasing number of young people—around a quarter of a million—are now feeling low and unhappy about their lives. The right hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) has just mentioned the pandemic. I recommend that people read the recent report by King’s College London and Oxford University on the pandemic and young people’s mental health, because we have not yet seen the long-term effects.
In opening, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East mentioned the statistic that 50% of mental health problems develop before the age  of 14, and 75% before the age of 24. We have to change attitudes in this country. Is mental health a health issue? I have to say that for me, it is not; it is an economic issue as well. If we are not going to invest money in early interventions in schools, we will frankly not get the economic rewards. Those interventions would not only improve individuals’ lives, but save us money later on.
My hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) mentioned CAMHS. I pay tribute to all who work in CAMHS, but it will never work as it is set up at the moment. We can pour as much money as we like into it, but it will just not work. We have to try to stop the pipeline of young people going into CAMHS, because some people will need assessment by CAMHS but a lot of people do not. It is totally demoralising for young people and their families to be stuck on waiting lists, so we need processes to ensure that they can get early intervention.
I fully support school-based counselling as a way forward, but this is a broader issue. It is not just about schools; it is about the entire way we set up mental health services in this country. We need an open access policy, where people can access mental health services in the community and young people can access them in schools. If we do not do that, we will always have this system where we pour so much money into the medical side of it without addressing the real problem: dealing with those who are in crisis and need support earlier. Early intervention can prevent people from calling on services in later life, and save money. It is not just about saving money, though; it is about ensuring that those people have fulfilling lives.
Are schools islands? No, they are not. They are part of local communities, and it is vitally important that whatever we put into schools—I would certainly make it mandatory for schools to have school-based counselling —has to have links into local communities. I consider myself very fortunate in County Durham. We have a fantastic network of community-based, open-access, voluntary sector organisations that get on and deal with helping people in the community. If U Care Share is a suicide prevention charity that goes into schools and works in the community around young people and mental health. We have just had the new, fantastic Think Positive PACT House project open in Stanley in my constituency. It is a completely open-access hub. People can just walk into it and get the support they need. The people there not only give people support but, if they need to, refer them to more intensive services. We have a fantastic organisation called Rollercoaster based at the Riverside in Chester-le-Street, which supports parents of young people suffering with mental illness. We should not forget that it is not just the young person who is affected; the issue often affects an entire family. Rollercoaster is a fantastic organisation working on that.
In the system I would like to see, it is very important that we have school-based counselling, but we have to have that network of community open-access facilities that allow people, if they want to, to access mental health services. That is not just about people who are in crisis; it could just be people who want some advice. We should do that. People say, “If you give it to the voluntary sector, that is saving money”—no, it is not. Money properly invested in the voluntary sector at the local level pays dividends. It will not only lead to better outcomes, but be better value for money.
I will finish on stigma, which I have done a lot of work on with many Members of the House. We are making progress, but we have to change people’s attitudes. It is that simple thing that if someone had a broken leg or a physical disability, they would go to a doctor or ask for help, but the problem is that many people do not do that when they have a mental health condition. We have to get the system to the point where people can just walk in, ask for help and get it. I have great respect for GPs, and make no criticism of the work they do, but they should not be the only way of accessing those services. If we had that open-access policy, community-based services and schools working with their local communities, we would not only have better outcomes for individuals, but save money. A lot of the cash that goes into mental health services should be redirected into community services and schools where people are accessing it.
To finish, the more we talk about this subject, the more normalised we make it. If I may, I give one message to young people today if they are suffering—we accept the huge pressures on them today. It is not a sign of weakness to ask for help. It is there, please ask for it.

Jo Gideon: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown) on securing this important debate. I rise to speak both as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on youth affairs and as the Member of Parliament for Stoke-on-Trent Central, which has significant challenges due to multiple deprivation factors in our city and the high levels of young people in care—more than 1,000—which mean that our schools and colleges have a vital counselling and safeguarding role. That underpins our ambitions to give our young people the best opportunities to achieve and fulfil their potential.
However, support for care leavers and those who live independently is inconsistent and a high-risk area. These young people are vulnerable, as well as being high-risk for mental health issues. Young people’s mental health issues impact educational outcomes and the ability to form friendships. Problems can last into adulthood, affecting life chances and physical health.
In Stoke-on-Trent, CAMHS is overstretched and cannot meet the demands across the city. Students do not see the same person for any follow-up appointments or long-term counselling treatment. In addition, a 17-year-old student is unlikely to be seen until they reach 18 due to the waiting list. Services are now focused on the reactive as opposed to the preventive at a time of wide recognition that investment must be focused on preventive actions to avoid the physical and mental—and financial—cost of waiting until a young person presents with a major trauma.
I welcome the recommendations in the national food strategy about the importance of access for every child to nutritious food and healthy eating, to address the causes of malnutrition in schools and to tackle eating disorders, which recently have risen significantly. Those issues are also probably picked up more by counsellors than by other services.
This year, City of Stoke-on-Trent Sixth Form College’s safeguarding, counselling and wellbeing team received a national award for its emotional wellbeing project. I am sure the House will join me in congratulating  Jo Finn, Kirsty Cooper and Claire Gaygan on the superb work that they do, which was made possible by the opportunity area funding. The college looks after about 1,800 students, many of whom are from disadvantaged backgrounds. The funding enabled the team to devise a model to meet the needs of the young people of Stoke-on-Trent, rather than the other way round. The impact of that is measurable in clinical data, as well as other key performance indicators, including attendance, progression and retention. Young people have engaged with the service as it fits around their timetables, no travel is involved, they see the purpose and they are referred quickly internally to a mental health practitioner, an emotional wellbeing worker, or one of the many groups that they can attend.
Across the city, schools also take on the hugely important role of safeguarding. They act as a triage service that notifies other statutory services when they become aware of issues, as well as providing a safe space where children can open up to a trusted adult. I commend the excellent work undertaken in all our schools and colleges. I have the utmost respect for all the teachers and support staff who work so hard to provide not only quality education but pastoral care to our children and young people. I have heard many accounts of the daily challenges faced in providing such support as an unfunded or temporarily funded extra. I speak today in support of core funding for mental health counselling and safeguarding provision to ensure that those with added personal challenges and health issues have the best possible chances throughout our education system.
In Stoke-on-Trent, loss of early intervention across the city means more focus on higher-tier services that look at extreme cases involving, for example, domestic abuse, substance misuse or human trafficking. Schools and colleges are therefore having to deal with intermediate services. Locally, Stoke-on-Trent has lost essential services such as the school nurse service, which provided preventive support and guidance, and sometimes immediate referrals to A&E, particularly for mental health issues and eating disorders; “Hidden Harm”, a drug service supporting young people with parents with drug-related and mental health issues; and the STAR—sex teenagers and relationships—service that provided early intervention and support around healthy relationships. As a result, schools and colleges are having to pick that up.
The threshold for family services is extremely high, which means that schools and colleges are also picking up that early intervention work. They have the skills and experience to do that, but they have no allocated budget or time. It is an additional responsibility.

Munira Wilson: The hon. Lady is making some important points. When I tour schools in my constituency, mental health is by far the No. 1 priority that every headteacher gives me. I have been struck by the impact on staff, many of whom do not have the skills and experience to deal with the level of mental health problems that they face. I went into a secondary school a few days after a young person had taken their own life. Just recently, I saw a seven-year-old expressing violent behaviour and the teacher was shaken up and had to take time out of the classroom. That is why we need mental health support teams rolled out quickly. The Government’s catch-up funding must provide not just academic support but holistic support, including for mental health, because teachers and headteachers are really struggling.

Jo Gideon: I thank the hon. Lady, and I agree with all she says.
The threshold for family services is extremely high, which means that schools and colleges are picking up early intervention work. The sixth-form college works specifically with 16 to 18-year-olds, which is a really challenging place to be. Legally, this age group is still classed as children, but accessing external support is increasingly challenging. There is a huge gap between children’s and adults’ services, and the threshold for adult services is even higher than for children’s services. At 18 someone will come under adult services, but it is almost impossible to have an adult services support worker for an 18-year-old.
The issue of funding counselling services spans both the Health and the Education Departments. Disappointingly the college approached the clinical commissioning group to share costs and provide additional support for both colleges in the city, which would have cost about £40,000, but the CCG declined. As we move to integrated care partnerships, I hope that it will take an holistic view of preventive mental health support, and that means working closely with education and schools.
I recognise that the cost of staffing counselling service provision across all the schools in England is significant, but I truly believe that it is a key element of levelling up. If areas such as Stoke-on-Trent are to level up our educational achievement, the things that hold us and our children and young people back must be addressed by having extra counselling services. We cannot raise standards without recognising the real barriers that most vulnerable young people face and putting in place core funding for essential school and college-based counselling services. I believe that that will address these issues, particularly in the most disadvantaged areas—there is a need for these services in every area, but those areas need disproportionately more, and any help that the Government provide is most welcome. We need to recognise that some areas need more help than others, and I hope that the Minister is listening.

Rachael Maskell: It is a real pleasure to speak in today’s debate, and I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown) and the right hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) for securing it.
Early intervention cuts harm, reduces risk now and in the long term and, crucially, prevents ill health in the first place. Children and young people are exposed to so many risks and so much trauma in their lives. Bullying occurs, adverse childhood experiences are real and there is the issue of social media. I would also say to the Minister and his Department that the pressure of the school system and exams is bearing down on children.
If we do not produce well-rounded children at the end of their schooling, what have we done to our young people? That is why it is so important that today’s debate looks holistically not just at children’s mental health issues but at their causes, and that it addresses those too. That is particularly important given that we heard that one in nine children had a diagnosable mental health condition pre-pandemic, rising to one in six as a result of covid—covid has of course borne down so heavily on so many of our constituents.
A quarter of 17-year-olds have self-harmed, and 7% have attempted suicide. The numbers are rising fast. This is an epidemic, and we need the Government to shift resources now to get a grip on what is happening. It is unforgivable that the Vale of York CCG budget for child mental health is so limited and that just 0.8% of its overall budget is spent on child mental health—just £55 per child. Children wait 39 weeks for their first contact with the service, and longer for treatment.
Surveys of schools in York show that we are crying out for counsellors. Some schools have told me that they have been able to find a few hours for wellbeing by replacing teacher time or by benefiting from student counsellors or the school wellbeing service. However, by their own admission, provision was too little, too late or non-existent. Schools therefore need support. When they do engage, of course, they have all sorts of challenges around information sharing. While they understand the need for confidentiality, they need to address those issues too. School mental health should not be just another thing for teachers to do. That is unsafe. What if they miss a diagnosis or an intervention? That is where we need to have trained professionals at the helm, creating healthy environments for children to be nurtured in.
Of course, training teachers is important. We can address the culture and climate of a school, but ultimately this must be a job for health professionals. However, without a workforce plan, supporting young people is not going to happen. I recall when the Government focused on driving up the number of health visitors—sadly that is now regressing fast. I was head of health at Unite at the time. It was a priority for No.10. There was action every day. Mountains were moved and people were trained. However, there is no similar focus on the mental health and wellbeing of our precious and often fragile young people and I call on the Minister to look at that today. What happened around training those health visitors? Can that be translated into putting school counsellors in place, addressing a massive shortage in the workforce? That was the case with health visitors then and it is the case with counsellors now.
We need to ensure that a proper structure is in place. This is not just about young people; it is also about parents. Parents want support and to know how best to nurture their children through a crisis, and through developing and increasing mental health challenges. If a child broke their leg, they would know exactly where to go, where to get support and—guess what—on day one they would get the treatment they need. But it is months and months for an injured mind and that is certainly not parity of esteem. So why not make schools the hub for all child mental health, from nursery to primary to secondary to college and to university?
We also need community services. I urge the Minister to talk about youth services, and the need to ensure that we properly invest in those services as a hub in the community that children can access. If we know about place and about the professionals we need in that place, we can then have a programme to get to the point we need to get to. That is what is missing. Where do people go? We hear about family hubs, virtuous as they may be, but then we have CAMHS services and GPs. It is a minefield and a mess, so we must simplify the system and bring it into one place to help families to know exactly where they are heading.
I am not trying to pathologise mental health—quite the opposite. If we have the right professionals in place, they can easily triage individuals into the right place and services. For some people, that will involve an escalation to see an educational psychologist, a psychiatrist, or other professionals. Perhaps it will lead to social prescribing. I urge the Minister to look at the success of the social prescribing programme. It is being rolled out for adults, but what about engaging children and young people in various things happening in their community? I commend organisations such as The Island in my constituency, which provides space and time for vulnerable young people to build confidence and self-esteem, and to unlock their potential through building positive mentoring relationships and unique programmes. The testimonies from there are phenomenal.
In conclusion, let us agree a few principles. The first is place and that is the educational setting. Then it is the workforce. Then let us get a workforce plan in place. Let us consider the recruitment and training we need, and let us have uncapped funding so that we get on top of this crisis and address the needs that follow. If the Education Minister does one thing in his time in post, building and enhancing the wellbeing, confidence and wholeness of a young person would be a far greater legacy than perhaps any of his predecessors have ever achieved.

Miriam Cates: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), and I congratulate the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) on securing such an important debate.
Some time ago, before I was an MP, I was a secondary school science teacher. Like most busy secondary school teachers, I taught more than 300 pupils every week. As a teacher, I was very much focused on delivering the syllabus, ensuring that no one set fire to the classroom, and getting through all the teaching material on schedule. For a classroom teacher, it is important that students are ready to learn, and we often think about that in terms of, “Have they got the right pens and the right pencils? Have they brought their textbooks and homework?” However, it is, of course, also important that students are ready to learn emotionally and mentally.
It is not uncommon for teachers to have students turn up to the classroom who are just not in a fit state to learn. They might need to go to pastoral support or take some time out. Sometimes, the issues—a falling out between friends, an unexpectedly bad test result, or perhaps not getting into a sports team—resolve themselves on their own. But sometimes—often, in fact—the issues are deeper and harder to fix. I am thinking of things such as low self-esteem, a chaotic home life, abuse and, increasingly commonly, sexual exploitation over the internet.
Members on both sides of the House have made excellent speeches about how children are increasingly affected by mental health challenges that they desperately need help with and are not going to recover from on their own. Of course, some will have parents and extended family who are able to help, but many will not. It is not  just important for their educational prospects that they have access to counselling in school; it is also important for their life chances in general that we address these problems early to stop them becoming chronic and affecting their whole lives. I do not want to repeat the many excellent remarks about the challenges our children are facing and how it is so important that all children have access to professional support.
Some schools are doing an amazing job already. Horizon Community College in Barnsley in my constituency has a wellbeing centre on site that is staffed by counsellors and people from the multi-agency support team, who support not only the children in the school but the whole community. That is a fantastic example, and we should share such good practice. But the truth is that many smaller schools do not have the resources to put in place something as innovative as that, so I fully support the campaign by my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow to have a mental health professional available in every school.
Of course we need counsellors in schools, but it is very important that they are professional, that they follow guidance and that they can be trusted. In response to a survey by the Department for Education in 2017, only 47% of schools that employed counsellors said that their counsellors were registered with professional bodies, and one in seven said that their counsellors had no qualifications at all. We need to be very careful when we talk about counsellors in schools. They have a very influential role and they deal with vulnerable children, who often have mental health issues, as we know. They must fulfill that role responsibly and professionally, and they must follow guidance. I very much welcome the idea of community sector and third sector involvement, but we have to be very careful about the potential safeguarding issues if we do not follow the guidance and do not ensure professionalism.
I want to raise what I think is a very dangerous potential safeguarding issue that we are seeing in this area right now. Schools are inviting outside organisations in to provide counselling-type services and using their materials. Groups such as Stonewall and Mermaids are teaching what I think are dangerous and contested, extreme ideologies that do not have a basis in science to our children, and it is contrary to DFE guidance. We have groups such as the Allsorts Youth Project, which is teaching children that there are more than two sexes, and the Diversity Role Models group, which comes into school and provides workshops but tells children that their sex was assigned to them at birth. I have seen a video today by the Free to Be group telling teachers that they might drive children to suicide if they do not accept this ideology. And we have Stonewall wrongly interpreting the Equality Act 2010 in a way that erodes the sex-based rights particularly of girls, in a way that I think is very dangerous.
I know of children who have been counselled by adults in school that they would be happier if they changed their gender, and frighteningly, they are being told not to tell their parents and to keep this a secret. I know of schools where children are disciplined for complaining about children of the opposite sex being allowed to use their PE changing rooms. I think this pushing of an extreme ideology that does not have a basis in science and is highly contested is having terrible consequences, and teachers and pupils are afraid to speak out.
In 2009, 72 children were referred to the Tavistock’s gender identity service. In 2019, 2,364 children, of which two thirds were girls, were sent to the service. That is a 5,000% increase in the number of girls sent to the clinic in just 10 years. Many of them go on to be prescribed puberty blockers, and research suggests that 98% of those children are then given cross-sex hormones. These are children who will become infertile, sterile and have permanent loss of sexual function. How can 12, 13 or 14-year-olds consent to that? Many of these children have complex mental health issues. Many are autistic and many have difficult family backgrounds. Some are same-sex attracted, but are being told that they should change their gender. I am afraid that that is a consequence of a harm being done to our children as a direct result of this agenda being pushed in schools contrary to DFE guidance, which states:
“You should not reinforce harmful stereotypes, for instance by suggesting that children might be a different gender”.
The guidance goes on to talk about what material can and cannot be used.
I appreciate that the Minister has agreed to meet me to discuss this issue. Absolutely, we need counsellors to be available in school and we need more focus on wellbeing and emotional health. However, we must have a robust safeguarding process to ensure that the adults who go into schools and the materials they use are registered, approved and in line with DFE guidance, and that they are doing the best for our children, encouraging their wellbeing and not pushing their own agenda. I look forward to hearing from the Minister how he intends to ensure the guidance is followed and I appreciate his offer to meet me.

Royal Assent

Eleanor Laing: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that Her Majesty has signified her Royal Assent to the following Act:
Environment Act 2021.

School-based Counselling Services

Debate resumed.

Eleanor Laing: I also have to inform the House that I have to reduce the time limit to six minutes. I call Paul Blomfield.

Paul Blomfield: I am pleased to have the opportunity, after the last contribution, to return the discussion to the topic under debate, and to thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown) and the right hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) for securing the debate on which there has been, until the last contribution, a great deal of consensus across the House.
Every year, as part of my annual community consultation at the start of the year, I meet school students in each of the secondary schools in my constituency. Maybe this is my naivety, but the first I time did that I was genuinely shocked. When I asked them, “What is the most important thing we could be doing to change your lives?” they told me in each of the schools that it was to provide access to mental health support. Over the past 10 years, I have heard the same message year after year.
As with so many issues, the pandemic has brought this crisis into sharper relief. In Sheffield, I have heard from worried parents, teachers and health professionals who tell me about the scale of the problem with child and adolescent mental health and the lack of available services. Last Friday, I discussed the position with those at Sheffield Children’s Hospital. They are worried. For the most serious cases, they are deeply concerned about the lack of psychiatric beds for young people. They have worked hard to narrow the gap between referral to CAMHS and first appointment, but it is still about five months—five months—for that critical initial intervention. That situation is reflected across the country.
The former Children’s Commissioner highlighted in 2021 the fact that over 500,000 children and young people were referred to CAMHS in the previous two years. Of those, approximately 3,500 either had their referral closed or were still on the waiting list at the end of the reporting period. The number of A&E attendances by young people aged 18 or under with a recorded diagnosis of a psychiatric condition has tripled since 2010. The hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) made a striking contribution about the number of suicides. Our schools are caught in the middle of this crisis, desperate to support their students but without the resources to do so. Prior to the pandemic, one third of schools did not provide any in-school mental health support. Those that do provide support have to dip into their teaching budgets, distracting from other priorities to do so. That is why parents, along with professionals, believe that access to counselling is so important.
Of course, it is not just about counselling. We need to be ahead of the problem and view mental wellbeing in the same way as we view physical wellbeing. Our Healthy Minds and Mental Health Support Team in Sheffield works with local schools to develop a culture of emotional wellbeing among young people, which includes feeling safe and valued, with social connectedness and structure in their lives. Young people want to be heard and to  have staff who understand that other things might be going on in their lives and who know how to listen. That cannot be a bolt-on; it has to be embedded in a school’s culture. For example, if a young person is feeling anxious about exams, there are therapeutic interventions to help them to manage that stress. But time and funding to do that is vital to its success.
When young people are struggling, early intervention is key, helping them to deal with the problems that they face when they face them and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) pointed out, taking the pressure off services further down the line that would be drawn in if the problem got worse. That is why the Local Government Association recently urged the Government to fully fund counselling services in all state-funded secondary schools, providing immediate support. It called for £100 million a year to
“ensure access to a…counsellor for at least two days a week for more than 90 per cent of schools.”
The Government’s response is to ask more of already overstretched school staff. The plans for mental health support teams are welcome, but they do not go far enough. Encouraging mental health leads in schools to undertake training to help to fill the gap by equipping teachers to recognise problems and point students towards help just will not do. As the assistant principal of one of my local secondary schools said to me yesterday:
“Frankly I do not need to be trained in how to signpost young people to mental health care providers, I need the money to be invested in providing the actual mental health care.”
Clearly, support does not stop with counselling. How will CAMHS waiting times be addressed? How many more mental health professionals are being trained? As Members on both sides of the House have consistently said, preventive and early intervention is vital. Half of all mental health problems manifest by the age of 14. It is striking that NHS England recognises that the current investment in children and young people’s mental health meets only 33% of need. That is truly shocking. What if that were to apply to other illnesses? Is there any other kind of epidemic that we would allow to run rampant among our children? Is there any other type of illness that we would let lie untreated without concern for the impact on future generations?
As chair of the all-party group on students, I co-led an inquiry into the provision of mental health support for 16 to 21-year-olds moving into FE and HE. That demonstrated the numbers who were transitioning into HE and FE without previously having had support. When the Minister rises to say what the Government have done, I hope that he will recognise what more needs to be done, as has been reflected in contributions from Members on both sides of the House.

Paul Bristow: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) on securing this really important debate, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing it.
Since I was elected, I have been working with young people from Peterborough schools on mental health services for children and young people. I am so lucky to  have in my city a group of talented, passionate young people who are ready and willing to offer their time to work with their MP on this important issue. I genuinely consider it a privilege to be working with many of them. The speech that I am making today has in part been drafted by those young people; they have provided me with quotes, statistics and testimony. So I would like to thank Darya Robson, Charlotte Hemens, Amelia Lawson, Austeya Dalansamskita and Amira Dinari for all that they have done. They have done superb work and they make me proud of Peterborough.
It is well documented that there has been an increasing demand for mental health services for children and young people, much of it because of the measures taken to prevent the spread of covid. A recent survey by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children reported that ChildLine helped as many as 67 children with suicidal thoughts a day. In my region, the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust had 1,625 urgent referrals in the month of May 2021 alone, of which 795 were for potentially life-threatening conditions. We are facing a mental health crisis in our young people and the more that we can support them by providing access to early intervention in the form of in-school counselling, the better things will be.
The group of young people I have been working with has also been working with Cambridgeshire and Peterborough clinical commissioning group to secure a system with a single point of referral and a new website. The group approached me last week to request that I participate in this debate and campaign for school-based counselling, which I am more than happy to do.
In 2020, amid the first wave of the covid pandemic, one in six children aged five to 19 was identified as having a probable mental health disorder—up from one in nine before the pandemic. School should be the one safe place where every child can feel valued, cared for and accepted. It is the perfect place for students who are suffering with their mental health to access an on-site qualified counsellor.
I feel that the current systems and mechanisms for mental health provision are not serving young people as they should. In 2019, more than half of GP referrals to child and adolescent mental health services in the UK were rejected on the grounds that the symptoms were not severe enough. Although other services such as NHS mental health support teams are being developed, they are patchy in coverage and tend to focus on parental interventions. They are no substitute for on-site access to a qualified counsellor.
All the evidence, including research undertaken in my county, supports early intervention to prevent an issue from becoming a full-blown crisis. School-based counselling can provide an alternative option for young people who have nowhere else to turn. The young people I have been working with are from a range of schools and colleges; some are fortunate enough to have a school-based counsellor, but others are not.
Students who benefit from easily accessible on-site counselling testify that they feel more comfortable talking with a professional with whom they have a long-term relationship because of their presence in the school community. They also emphasise the overwhelming advantage from not missing education time by leaving school for external mental health appointments; a pre-covid study found that absence due to poor mental health accounted for more than 13% of school days lost.  Students who have this option are also free from the burden of waiting times, referral lists and possible rejection for not meeting criteria, and are less likely to need access to emergency services.
Providing school-based counselling means that no student slips through the net. Students from schools and colleges that are not able to offer the service tell a different story. One group I met spoke of having access only to a trainee counsellor, who was limited in the support that they could provide, meaning that students waited a long time to access a non-qualified counsellor, only to be signposted to outside organisations. One student told me:
“Having a qualified counsellor would increase the attendance and engagement of students. More importantly it would mean that students can get the support they need without having to reach a crisis point before any action is taken. It would mean that students felt safer and more willing to seek the help they need without feeling like a burden.”
The pandemic has put an enormous strain on our young people. I believe that we owe it to them to ensure that they have the support that they need at the place where they need it: their school or college. I therefore urge Ministers to listen carefully to the voices of young people from a variety of schools in my constituency, including Peterborough School, the King’s School, Thomas Deacon Academy and St John Fisher School—lots of schools in my constituency have taken the time to contact me about the subject. Will Ministers please outline what they will do to get more counsellors based in schools?

Rachel Hopkins: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown) and the right hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) on securing the debate.
Young people have faced a great deal of uncertainty and disruption to their daily lives, education and support networks, with many facing financial insecurity, trauma and bereavement. A recent survey by YoungMinds found that two thirds of young people aged 13 to 25 believed that the pandemic would have a negative long-term impact on their mental health. In 2017, one in nine children and young people was estimated to have a diagnosable mental health condition; in September, NHS Digital suggested that one in six young people now has a probable mental health disorder.
Access to free, timely counselling interventions for young people can play a critical role in responding to pre-existing mental health needs and to those brought about by the pandemic or other traumatic experiences. However, Government complacency has left CAMHS overwhelmed and many schools without the necessary resources. Before the pandemic, a third of schools did not provide any in-school mental health support; recent research by the Institute for Public Policy Research suggests that as few as 48% of schools were providing on-site access to a counsellor.
I visited Downside Primary School in my constituency of Luton South as part of UK Parliament Week last week. The headteacher told me about the excellent work that the school is doing to support children’s mental health needs. However, Downside has had to resort to using its own grant funding to hire appropriate mental wellbeing support, be it a counsellor or a psychologist, to work with pupils directly in the school.
That is because of three overarching barriers restricting children and young people’s access to mental health support. First, CAMHS simply lacks the capacity to meet demand at the level at which it is needed—often long before a child is in crisis—and in a timely manner. Secondly, there is too much bureaucracy and form-filling, restricting school staff’s ability to secure mental health support for children quickly—perhaps in relation to a longer-term condition, but particularly at that early stage before the child reaches crisis. Thirdly, CAMHS is not always reaching, or meeting the needs of, an ethnically diverse and multi-faith community, owing to social stigma about going “outside” home or school for support, particularly mental health support. Expanding that support in schools to reduce stigma is a priority for parents, who would be much more comfortable about enabling their children to access it in a school setting, and more financially able to do so. I would welcome the Minister’s comments on this complex and sensitive issue.
Parentkind’s Annual Parent Survey 2021 found that 41% of parents wanted any additional school funding to be spent on child mental health services, which meant that it was their second biggest priority, while 88% wanted mental health development to be an important focus within the curriculum. However, the Government are only aiming to get mental health support teams to a quarter of young people by 2023. Will the Minister explain why there is such a lack of urgency on the Government’s part?
We need the Government to listen to the proposals put forward by the Labour party, which would expand the mental health workforce, deliver access to trained mental health counsellors in every school—which, as we have heard, works well—and deliver support to young people through open-access mental health hubs in every community. Under our proposals, every secondary school would have access to a full-time staff member, and primary schools would have access to specialist staff time shared between different local primary schools. Open-access mental health hubs would also help us to reach marginalised children who would otherwise not have access to mental health treatment.
I hope to hear from the Minister whether he agrees that a trained mental health counsellor should be available in every school.

Damien Moore: I thank the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) for securing the debate. It is particularly close to my heart, because in my constituency we have three of the UK’s leading specialist schools for children with learning difficulties. I have had the privilege of visiting them and speaking to staff and children, who I understand come from miles around for the specialist care that Merefield, Peterhouse and Presfield Schools provide. I realise how lucky we are to have those wonderful schools in Southport on our doorstep, and I also realise that, sadly, this is not a success shared universally across the UK. Indeed, the schools themselves have told me that they are at capacity, and that although they would like to take on more children, they are often unable to do so.
In the case of many children, it is not full-time specialist care that they need, but simply a friendly, qualified counsellor to whom they can speak in confidence,  perhaps on a regular basis, about their problems. Small interventions now can pay dividends in the long run, helping children to achieve their potential.
I back the Government’s record on support for children’s mental health, particularly during covid, and am proud to have voted for many of those measures. In March last year, as covid took hold, I was pleased to support the offer of £79 million to boost mental health provision for children and young people. By April 2023, that should enable nearly 3 million children to have access to some 400 mental health support teams in schools and colleges. These are noble goals and I fully support them, but there is still much more to do.
Just two months later, we announced the provision of £17 million to improve mental health and wellbeing support in schools and colleges, with up to 7,800 institutions in England being offered up to £9.5 million to train senior mental health leads. These measures are clearly popular. The British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy reports that 72% of adults believe that schools should offer counselling services, including some 79% of parents with children under the age of 18. Among 16 to 24-year-olds, the figure jumps to a staggering 83%. The support is clearly there, but, while the Government are doing an unprecedented amount to support mental health in schools, specific measures such as increased provision of well-trained schools-based counsellors would be of great benefit.
I do not think that fixing this is just a job for the Government. It is right that the decisions are delegated to schools, and that while the Government are clear that all schools should make counselling services available to their pupils, it is ultimately individual schools and colleges that know best what support to offer their students. That is why they should have the freedom to enact the Government’s recommendations as they wish. However, I would encourage them to work closely with their local NHS, clinical commissioning groups, councils and, most importantly, parents and carers of children, to achieve the ends that we all want to achieve.
In speaking to my constituents and helping them with their casework, I understand the difficulty that many have had in getting an educational health and care plan—an EHCP—once they are referred to SEND. This plan is crucial to the wellbeing of some children, as without it they will struggle to get the necessary arrangements implemented in school that they need for their mental wellbeing. My constituents suffer from a lack of information throughout the process of getting an EHCP, as well as ongoing delays, and they sometimes do not get the support they need. Children can find this frustrating, and I fear a situation where we see children with mental health issues being excluded because they cannot get the treatment they so clearly need.
We need to see mental health support being provided as early as possible in a child’s school career, so that it is there when they need it, not years after their mental illness first occurs. We need to look at what more we can do to support those with moderate mental health problems who do not need specialist schools, but rather qualified counsellors. We need to hit this Government’s ambitious target and then set even more ambitious ones until 100% of children have access to mental health support in schools.

John Martin McDonnell: I welcome this debate. I worked in childcare many years ago, when it was difficult to get people to comprehend the scale of mental illness among children and young people. We have moved on from there, and I am really grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown) and the right hon. Member for Harlow (Mr Halfon) for securing this debate. I chaired the all-party parliamentary group for parental participation in education last week, and we heard that the charity Parentkind had produced a survey revealing parents’ concerns. It found that 41% of parents now see the need for additional resources to be spent on mental health services for children, and that this was their second highest priority after the need for additional learning resources.
We also received a briefing from the division of educational and child psychology of the British Psychological Society. I declare an interest, in that my wife is an educational psychologist, but as she reminds me, she is also a constituent so she has the right to lobby me, even if it is at the breakfast table. That report confirmed what my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown) said about incidence. The NHS’s own survey showed that in 2020, one in six children—that is 16%—aged between five and 16 were identified as having a probable mental disorder, increasing from one in nine in 2017. What I found startling was that the same study showed that only six in 10 children aged between five and 16 with a probable mental disorder had regular support from their school or college.
I fully welcome the additional funds that the Government have given, but most stakeholders believe that it is inadequate to meet the scale of the problem. My right hon. Friend pointed out that even by 2023, only 3 million of the 9.5 million children will receive the support that they need. What we have been arguing for is a comprehensive, fully functioning and fully funded pathway to support children with mental health problems, and that starts in school. That pathway usually starts as a result of a parent or teacher’s action, but some children now are self-reporting their mental health issues.
A crucial point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) about a workforce strategy to provide support for teachers and special educational needs co-ordinators, but in this debate we are emphasising the fact that there have to be comprehensive counselling services embedded within those schools as well. Let me now give a plug for educational psychologists. They have the expertise to provide early help and targeted mental health interventions. They work with the counselling services, where they exist, and also with families. They are often the access points to child and adult mental health services and other health provision that is available, often through local health services and now through local authorities as well.
While we welcome the additional resources, I think we are arguing for the Government to stand back and look for that comprehensive approach, based on a work- force strategy and on the investment overall.
I refer back to educational psychologists. There are 3,000 of them in this country at the moment. That means one educational psychologist for every 3,500 five to 19-year-olds—or, because they now deal with those aged nought to 25, one for every 5,000. One early investment  could be the expansion of educational psychology training places on the three-year doctoral programme, which could be readily invested in and could turn around relatively quickly to meet the increase in demand if we are to construct the comprehensive pathway service for which we have all been campaigning for so long. I will leave it at that point, because I know that other hon. Members want to speak.

Wera Hobhouse: Throughout this debate, we have heard time and again how important early intervention is. It is essential to a person’s proper recovery from a mental illness, and that is specifically true for children and young people suffering from an eating disorder. I speak today as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on eating disorders to highlight once more the huge problem that eating disorders pose and the big difference that early intervention can make.
Eating disorders have no single cause, but they have the highest mortality rate of all mental health disorders. I say that again: they have the highest mortality rate of all mental health disorders. Recovery lasts, on average, three times as long as the disorder itself. One third of people suffering from an eating disorder get better, one third stay the same—a life sentence in itself—and one third get worse; quite a lot of them, tragically, either die of malnutrition or take their own lives.
All too often, eating disorders can go undiagnosed and untreated. Although they do not discriminate, school-aged children are a particularly vulnerable group; most eating disorders develop during adolescence. According to data from NHS England, the number of children and young people waiting for eating disorder treatment has increased significantly in 2021 compared with previous years. In June, that figure was four times higher than at the same point in 2020. Eating disorders thrive in the shadows, where there is no social contact, and the pandemic has been particularly bad for sufferers from eating disorders.
There is much that we must do to improve outcomes for all with eating disorders. The APPG is looking into research funding, reducing waiting times and improving access to treatment, but the best possible thing we can do is to help children and young people to avoid reaching crisis point in the first place. The first point of contact for many children and young people in the UK is their school. Speaking to a counsellor can help them to cope with the different circumstances they face in their lives, within a familiar setting—yes, sometimes some of the problems our young people face are not so severe, but often they are. School is a daily contact that they have and a setting where they can access counselling.
I am not denying that other centres would be useful too, but surely we need to do more in schools. School staff are ideally placed to spot the early signs of an eating disorder, as well as the potential factors that can lead to the development of one. I have been a secondary school teacher too, and the problem is finding the time in the school day to really go into where a young person has an issue. It is that extra time and extra counselling resource that schools need.
I highlight the excellent work of the eating disorder charity Beat, which supports the APPG and runs training courses aimed at school professionals. Access to support  should never be a postcode lottery, but England lags behind the rest of our family of nations, where school counselling services have statutory funding. Research shows that as few as 48% of schools provide on-site access to a counsellor, with a growing divide between affluent and more deprived communities. School counsellors can provide that crucial missing middle between the lower-level intervention traditionally provided in schools and specialist children’s and young people’s mental health services.
Many leading mental health charities have got behind the campaign for a counsellor in every school in England, and I urge the Minister to support that call. Access to counselling should not just be for the schools and families that have the budget to fund this essential provision. I know that every school in Bath is committed not only to our children’s education, but to their wellbeing. They must be given the additional funding that they need to offer sustainable counselling provision as part of the wider mental health support package available to students. I repeat what many Members from across the House have said: this is the biggest issue that school leaders come to us with—they say that when I go into schools to talk to them. They want more mental health support for their young people.
There is no easy solution on the issue of mental health, but we cannot afford to cut corners, especially on the mental wellbeing of children and young people. We need a multifaceted approach that recognises the value of our schools, community services and society as a whole. Let me say again to the Minister: please pay attention to eating disorders, as they have reached epidemic levels and we need to do something about them.

Tulip Siddiq: I thank the right hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown) for leading this important debate on school-based counselling. It is a testament to how much we value this topic that on the day the House rises everyone has stayed back to contribute to this debate.
Lots of issues have been raised. The importance of looking at mental health holistically was talked about passionately by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell). The right hon. Member for Harlow passionately discussed the impact of social media on mental health. We heard repeatedly about the stigma around tackling mental health, including from my right hon. Friend.
Every Member who spoke talked about the impact of covid on young people. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) cited the survey by the charity YoungMinds showing that throughout this pandemic, in the past 18 months, the mental health problems for two thirds of young people have been exacerbated enormously. My right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East also talked about covid-19 and how it has restricted access to mental health services for far too many people. He also made important points about the impact on deaf children, and similar points were made to me when I met a group of headteachers from special needs schools, all of whom talked about the impact covid has had on people with physical disabilities and the mental health impact that moves on from there.
This is a perfect storm, which is likely to have devastating consequences for young people. We are already starting to see this impact as constituency MPs, with an astonishing 96% increase in under-18s being referred to mental health services between spring 2019 and spring 2021, according to the Royal College of Psychiatrists. Yet just two in five children with a diagnosed condition can actually access specialist support. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) talked powerfully about how shocked he was when he heard local children talk about the lack of access to specialist support. I felt similarly when I spoke to a group of young people in my constituency. When we are sitting here in the Chamber, we do not often think about how people struggle to access support. We think it is there and they can access it, but I felt the same as he did when I spoke to people. I was shocked when I read that an estimated one in six children and young people now have a mental health condition—that has increased from one in nine just four years ago. It is also shocking to see that the number of accident and emergency attendances for young people with a psychiatric condition has tripled since then. My hon. Friend the Member for York Central used a statistic that I had also looked up, which was that in 2017 almost a quarter of 17-year-olds had self-harmed. The situation was bad before and it is getting worse, just at the same time as access to mental health services, both in and out of school, has been restricted.
Many of the answers to how we tackle this crisis can relate to school. As well as wider positive impacts that schooling can have, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East talked about ample evidence that school-based counselling can improve wellbeing and attainment. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton South talked about the IPPR report, which I also read and which showed that far fewer state schools are providing on-site counselling than were doing so a decade ago, when nine in 10 schools offered it—the figure is now about half that, according to a recent survey of teachers. When children returned to school after lockdown, just one in five teachers thought that their school’s mental health services were sufficient to support their pupils. We know how much pressure teachers are under, so I hope that the Minister will pay attention to teachers returning to find that not enough mental health support was in place.
My hon. Friends the Members for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) and for York Central both talked about the importance of trained professionals, and the former talked about the missing middle. I know from my experience as a school governor, and we will all know from our experiences in our constituencies, that many teachers and school staff are currently taking on additional responsibilities for supporting pupils’ mental health, on top of their day jobs. They are mostly not trained to do it and neither do they have the resource to do it.
The Labour party believes that there is an alternative. My right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) talked about the economics of mental health and how it pays off to invest in it, which is what Labour believes. We want to give all schools the additional resources they need to hire specialist counselling and mental health support. That was one of the key  commitments of the £15 billion children’s recovery plan to deal with the fallout of the pandemic that Labour announced earlier this year. The Welsh Labour Government have made huge progress on this issue by legislating to put counselling support for 10 to 18-year-olds on a statutory footing.
Under Labour’s costed proposals, every secondary school would have a full-time staff member whose job is to support pupils’ mental health, and primary schools would have access to such specialist support, shared among schools in the local area. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central said, that would mean that problems would be caught and resolved before they could escalate, and teachers and other school staff would be able to focus on their jobs. We know what demanding jobs they have already.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West said, schools have to be part of the solution, but fixing the crisis in children and young people’s mental health cannot just be left to schools, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) said. Even with the support and resources that we would provide if we were in government, we would have to look at the support provided by CAMHS and other NHS services as well, and I am afraid that the situation in that respect is even worse. My right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham talked about early intervention; the truth is that waiting lists for mental health support are currently unacceptably long, thereby allowing problems to escalate well before young people can be seen by a specialist. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central also made that point.
I say again that there is an alternative. Labour has pledged to implement a new national NHS target that guarantees mental health support within a month, backed up by our plan to recruit 12,000 mental health professionals and to introduce a lock to ensure that mental health spending always rises when NHS funding is increased.
Lots of people talked about the local organisations that are so important in our areas. My right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham talked about Rollercoaster and my hon. Friend the Member for York Central talked about the Island. In both Camden and Brent in my constituency, several organisations provide support for young people. We in the Labour party want to make sure that every community has an open-access mental health hub for children and young people. Having visible, easy-to-find, drop-in mental health support centres is so important and complements the counselling support offered in schools, because the hubs ensure that those who are marginalised or feel unable to come forward at school can get the support they need.
There is a crisis of children and young people’s mental health in this country that we cannot ignore. The crisis is deepening as a result of the pandemic, as we heard over and over again, and the mental health support that is available in and out of school is not sufficient to tackle it. Those facts have come through loudly and clearly in this important debate. The situation in far too many schools does not match the ambition that parents, teachers and we in the Labour have for our children, mainly because of the huge pressures on school budgets following real-terms cuts of 9% in the past decade. We really need a proper plan from the Government to address that.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington advocated well for his constituent and his wife, but he also spoke passionately about a comprehensive strategy, which is what I urge the Minister to produce. It is time for change. We want the Minister to look at what Labour proposes on in-school counselling and a one-month support guarantee. We want mental health workforce expansion, community hubs and much else. The wellbeing, learning and prospects of an entire generation could be transformed by the bold step change in mental health support that we are calling for. I hope the Minister will listen to all the voices in the House that have made their points so passionately today.

Will Quince: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) on securing this important debate. I am conscious that time has been short, but I would like to thank all those who have spoken for their constructive contributions to this debate. Colleagues will know me well enough to know that I have never refused a meeting with a colleague and, although I will not be able to cover all of the points raised today, I would be very happy to meet any Member from across the House to further discuss the points that they have raised. I have already accepted a request from my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates).
We know that mental health can have a profound impact on the whole of a child’s life. That is why the Government are committed to treating mental health with the same urgency as physical health and to deliver parity of esteem, and we are supporting mental health and wellbeing at all stages of people’s lives. We recognise that schools are in a unique position as they are able to help to prevent mental health problems by promoting resilience as part of an integrated, whole school approach that is tailored to the needs of their pupils.
Improving mental health starts with promoting good mental wellbeing and ensuring that children and young people get the help and support that they need. Schools with the right support from specialist services can play a vital role in that, which is why improving mental health support for schools has been a long-standing priority for this Government, with a shared approach led by the Department of Health and Social Care and supported by the Department for Education.
Supporting mental health and wellbeing is especially important at this time. As many Members from across the Chamber have referenced today, the covid-19 pandemic has had a particular impact on the wellbeing and mental health of children and young people. The Government’s national survey on the mental health of children and young people in England, which was published in September, found that rates of probable mental health disorder in six to 16-year-olds have risen from one in nine in 2017 to one in six in 2021. Those findings, which are helping us to ensure that the action we are taking is informed by the most up-to-date evidence, reinforce what we have been hearing from schools and colleges about how many children face issues and the need to continue to act.
Because of that, the Government have made children’s wellbeing and mental health a central part of our  response to the coronavirus pandemic. Throughout the pandemic, we have prioritised keeping schools open above all else, as long as it was safe to do so, because it is so vital for children and young people’s wellbeing, as well as their education.
The Government have also invested £7 million this year in our Wellbeing for Education Recovery programme. That programme enabled local authorities to provide further support to schools and colleges to develop their curriculum and pastoral care provision in the context of the pandemic. The programme built on our £8 million Wellbeing for Education Return programme in 2020, which provided free expert training, support and resources for education staff dealing with children and young people experiencing additional pressures, including trauma, anxiety, or grief. Around 12,000 schools and colleges across the country have benefited from that support, which was delivered through local authorities.
In addition, we are investing up to £5 billion to support recovery for children and young people who need it most. That includes an additional £1 billion of new recovery premium funding for disadvantaged pupils. Our guidance is clear that schools can use that funding, as well as other funding such as pupil premium, to support their pupils’ mental health and wellbeing, including for counselling and other therapeutic services, alongside supporting their academic attainment.
As we move forward, the Government remain committed to improving the support available to schools by helping them to put in place whole school approaches to mental health and wellbeing which are tailored to the particular needs of their pupils. We know that school-based counselling by well-qualified practitioners can be an effective part of a whole school approach and that many schools already provide access to some counselling support. Our national survey of school provision, published in 2017, found that 61% of schools offered counselling services, with 84% of secondary schools providing their pupils with access to counselling support.
To further support schools that have decided that counselling support is the appropriate path for their pupils, we have produced guidance on how to deliver high-quality, school-based counselling. In the light of the impacts of the pandemic, we have committed to updating that guidance to make sure that it reflects the current context.
The guidance sets out our strong expectation that, over time, all schools will offer counselling services, alongside other interventions, because evidence suggests that counselling can have a positive effect, in particular on children’s psychological distress, self-esteem and general wellbeing. However, we have not mandated that all schools should provide access to counselling services as we believe that it is vital that they have the freedom to decide what support to offer their pupils based on their particular needs and drawing on an evidence base of effective practice.
We are taking action to help schools to build their capability to promote children and young people’s mental health and wellbeing, as well as ensuring that those who need help with their mental health receive appropriate support. The Government are providing £9.5 million to offer senior mental health lead training to about a third of all state schools and colleges in England in 2021-22. Part of the commitment that we made in our 2017 Green Paper, “Transforming children and young people’s  mental health provision”, was to offer this training to all state schools and colleges by 2025. The senior mental health lead is a strategic leadership role, with responsibility for overseeing the school’s whole school approach to mental health and wellbeing.
As part of this training, leads will learn about how to develop a culture and ethos that promotes positive mental health and wellbeing, as well as how to make the best use of local resources, including counselling services, to support children and young people who are experiencing issues. I am pleased to report that nearly a quarter of schools and colleges in England—about 6,000—have already applied for one of these £1,200 grants. Many senior mental health leads have already started their training, which will enable them to start to apply their learning this academic year. That will help them to build on the incredible work that they and their colleagues have done throughout the pandemic to promote and support the wellbeing of their pupils.
Another important part of the whole school approach is ensuring that all pupils understand how to promote their own mental health and wellbeing, and that they have the knowledge and confidence to seek additional support when it is needed. That is why, in September 2020, we made health education compulsory—

Kevan Jones: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Call me old-fashioned, but I thought that in a wind-up the Minister was supposed to respond to the debate. He has now been on his feet for seven or eight minutes, and all we have heard is a pre-prepared, read-out speech.

Eleanor Laing: The right hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a point of order for the Chair. If he does not like what the Minister is saying, he is at liberty to intervene on him and suggest that he says something else. The Minister also has plenty more time to make plenty more points.

Will Quince: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. In response to the right hon. Gentleman, I am responding to what the Government are doing on the issues that have been raised.
As I mentioned, another important part of the whole school approach is ensuring that all pupils understand how to promote their own mental health and wellbeing. We must ensure that they have the knowledge and confidence to seek additional support when it is needed. That is why we made health education compulsory for pupils receiving primary and secondary education, alongside relationships education in all primary schools, and relationships and sex education in all secondary schools. Through these new subjects, all children will be taught about mental health, including how to recognise and manage any wellbeing issues. We have published a support package for schools to ensure that teachers have the confidence to deliver the subjects, specifically including the content on mental health and wellbeing.
Let me turn to the mental health support teams, which have been referenced by numerous Members across the Chamber. Although schools have an important role to play, teachers are not mental health professionals and they should not be expected to act as such. Where more serious problems occur, schools should expect the pupil and their family to be able to access support from  specialist children and young people’s mental health services, voluntary organisations and local GP practices.

Wera Hobhouse: I have been encouraged by Madam Deputy Speaker to intervene. The point that Opposition Members are trying to make is that schools need to have in-house support, rather than just signposting to outside support. We would like to hear what the Minister has to say about that.

Will Quince: The mental health support teams are exactly that. Let me also respond in passing to the hon. Lady’s point about eating disorders. I am very much alive to that issue, and would be happy to meet her to discuss it at length. It certainly concerns me, as I know it concerns our colleagues at the Department of Health and Social Care.
We mentioned support in schools. The new mental health support teams are really important in this regard. The teams comprise newly-trained education mental health practitioners—an entirely new role—as well as more senior clinicians and therapists. They work alongside provisions such as counselling services to help to ensure that children and young people get the support that they need. They support staff in schools and colleges to develop their whole school approach to mental health and wellbeing, provide early intervention for those experiencing mild to moderate issues, and liaise with external specialist services where additional support is needed, which it sometimes is.

Paul Blomfield: The Minister talks about mental health support teams being able to provide practical support to children with problems. What assessment has the Department made of the coverage that will be provided by these teams in terms of the massive problem that Members on both sides of the House have described?

Will Quince: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question, and I will come on to that exact point. We have over 180 mental health support teams already operational and supporting children and young people in around 3,000 schools and colleges at present. That covers about 15% of pupils in England, as has been pointed out. These teams have played a vital role throughout the pandemic, adapting their services to make sure that children and young people have continued to receive the support that they needed remotely. We have 104 additional teams in development, with more to be commissioned this year. That will help the Government to deliver the commitment made in the NHS long-term plan for these teams to reach a quarter of all schools a year earlier than planned, in 2022.
Earlier this year, as part of the Government’s commitment to build back better, the hon. Gentleman will have noticed that the £500 million mental health recovery action plan was launched. That included an additional £79 million that will help to accelerate the coverage of these teams, with over 100 additional teams set to be established during 2021-22. It will bring the total number of those teams to around 400, and that will cover approximately 3 million children and young people—about 35% of all pupils in England—by 2023. Of course, our aspiration and ambition are to go further.

Paul Blomfield: The Minister talks about the number of teams. Could he give an estimate of the number of  full-time equivalent professional mental health workers who are part of those teams supporting pupils in our schools?

Will Quince: I do not have those figures to hand, but I am very happy to write to the hon. Gentleman with that information.
In the longer term, ensuring that children and young people have access to the mental health support that they need remains a priority for the Government. The NHS long-term plan sets out our commitment to ensure that funding for children and young people’s mental health services will grow faster than both overall NHS funding and total mental health spending. By 2023-24, at least an additional 345,000 children and young people aged nought to 25 will be able to access support via NHS-funded mental health services, including mental health support teams.
In conclusion—I am conscious that the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East needs some time to wind up—I am grateful for the support that the right hon. Member and my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow have given to this agenda. Good mental health and wellbeing for our children and young people remains a priority for the Government, particularly in the light of the impact of the covid-19 pandemic. We want to make sure that all our children are able to fulfil their potential, and we continue to tackle the injustice of mental health problems so that future generations can develop into confident adults, equipped to go as far as their talents will take them.

Nick Brown: I was really proud of the parliamentary Labour party this afternoon. I thought the speeches from Labour Members were very clear in their purpose and full of compassion for people who have every right to look to us to help them on this important topic. I would say the same of Members from all the Opposition parties. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) for her Front-Bench contribution, which I thought was excellent.
I thank the Minister for catching the tone and spirit of the debate. Clearly, we will want to pursue the conversation, and I welcome his willingness to engage, perhaps after he has had his meeting with his hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates), which I frankly do not envy him. I thought that Conservative colleagues’ contributions were absolutely excellent—[Interruption.] All right; on the whole. I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon), and I say to her that, yes, her constituents have our congratulations and praise for the award that they have won in starting off down a track that the Opposition so strongly support.
There is a lot of common ground and a lot of common purpose, and even the Minister was not so far away from where we want to get to. This is the start of a journey, rather than the end.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the provision of school-based counselling services.

Business without Debate

Business of the House

Ordered,
That notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee in respect of the Critical Benchmarks (References and Administrators’ Liability) Bill [Lords] may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before it has been read a Second time.—(Mrs Wheeler.)

Petition - Ocado Zoom

Rupa Huq: I rise to present a petition, on behalf of not just the constituent signatories but the 80 or so delivery drivers at the Ocado Zoom plant in Acton who, having worked throughout the pandemic, kept the company going and kept the capital going by delivering key food supplies, now find that they are being turfed out and frozen out for not accepting very punishing new terms and conditions. They are being replaced by third-party workers against the promises that they would be taken in-house. The petition notes that profits and business have deteriorated since all this started, as the company is putting profit over people. I have to say, the CEO has been donating lots of money to the Conservative party. I hope those things are not related.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of Ealing Central and Acton.
Declares that Ocado has not followed through on its promise to cease the use of third-party employment and transfer the workforce from 4 October 2021; further that the majority of deliveries are currently carried out by the third-party agency “Job and Talent”; further that Ocado Zoom offers no flexibility despite promises to provide fully-flexible contracts; notes that Ocado Zoom’s business has deteriorated because of the failure to implement the transfer of workers; and notes that Ocado Zoom continues to engage in exploitative practices and anti-trade union behaviour as they continue to prioritise profit over the working conditions of its staff.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to consider the concerns of the petitioners and take immediate action to ensure that Ocado engage with delivery drivers’ chosen trade union, the Independent Workers’ Union of Great Britain (IWGB), in order to resolve the current dispute; further that the Government should press Ocado Zoom to avoid further job losses of key workers.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002697]

Fire Safety: Retirement Communities

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mrs Wheeler.)

Kevan Jones: I am pleased that I have been able to secure this debate tonight. The impact of fire on any property can be devastating, but the risks are increased when it comes to fires in retirement communities, due to the vulnerability and dependency of the residents who reside in them. While “retirement communities” can refer to a variety of types of housing, it is crucial that any building housing vulnerable and dependent residents has the very highest levels of fire protection arrangements in place.
Many residents who live in retirement communities may be unable to evacuate themselves or may have evacuation plans in place that move them from one part of a building to another part that is safer. There is therefore increased importance on ensuring that the ability of fire to spread in these buildings is contained. Despite that, much of the focus recently, following the tragedy at Grenfell, has been on the height of buildings and not necessarily the protection or lay-out of individual buildings.
I will talk about a specific retirement community in my North Durham constituency, but many of the issues I raise will affect other hon. and right hon. Members’ constituencies throughout the country. Cestrian Court was constructed and opened in 2008 by McCarthy & Stone, a developer and management company for retirement communities. The individual flats were sold to residents, and the lease was sold on. The building is currently managed by FirstPort, which also owns the lease. The issues relating to fire safety at Cestrian Court were first brought to my office in February when a resident passed me a copy of a compliance report stating that certain fire-stopping features were
“not considered to have met the guidance at the time of construction.”
Having looked at the report in more detail, I must say that I was alarmed at the litany of defects at Cestrian Court from the time of its construction. Most notably, a 1.5 metre part of a compartment wall between two flats was missing—in effect, a chunk of a corner of a cavity wall was missing—and cavity barriers on doors were not fire-stopped. Moreover, and as I will come to later, the attic space had numerous fire structures dislodged. That may have been as a result of residents moving structures in the loft or, as the report outlines, due to expansion and contraction of the roof and cavity barriers not being mechanically fixed at the time of construction. Finally, and most importantly, these defects did not meet building regulations at the time of construction: plasterboard joints were not sealed; plasterboard compartment walls were not extended to barge boarding areas; cables penetrated brick dwarf walls; roof voids were not fire-stopped; pipes penetrated cavity barriers; service penetration was not adequately fire-stopped; and communal venting discharged through the roof without fire dampening. All of those defects were serious and weakened the protections for Cestrian Court’s elderly residents. In the event of a fire, they would have had serious consequences.

Jim Shannon: I commend the right hon. Member on initiating this important debate. Does he agree that the travesty of building regulations  that have allowed unsafe building to take place without challenge increases the importance of the duty of care to local residents, which must be addressed not simply for his constituents but for those in every one of the 650 constituencies represented in the House, including my constituency of Strangford?

Kevan Jones: I very much agree and will come to some of what the Government must do. Local fire boards and fire brigades will need extra enforcement powers.
I expected McCarthy & Stone, as the builder of the retirement community, to show an interest in rectifying its possible mistakes. I believed—foolishly—that it would be horrified at the risks that it might have inflicted on the residents through a litany of fire safety defects and that it would contact FirstPort, the new operator, to co-ordinate ways in which to rectify the situation. I was therefore disappointed when it simply said that the operation of the building had been passed to a new provider and that the warranty period on its construction work was up—it basically washed its hands of the situation.
It is unclear why the new operator, FirstPort, did not discover some of the structural building defects earlier as part of its due diligence when it took over Cestrian Court from McCarthy & Stone. It is also unclear why, given that Cestrian Court had five inspections during its construction, the National House Building Council failed to identify these issues.
On receiving the compliance report, I immediately contacted the chief fire officer at County Durham and Darlington Fire and Rescue Service, who did an audit of the building. Of most concern was the “stay put” policy in place for residents in the event of a fire, which effectively said, “In the event of a fire, do not worry. Stay in your flats. Your flats are fireproof.” Nothing could have been further from the truth. Since construction 11 years ago, residents have been under the impression that “stay put” was the best policy to save them in the event of a fire. That was on the misguided assumption that the fire would be contained. With no fire-proof doors, gaps in cavity walls and loft spaces with missing or dislodged fire safety structures, that advice might have had fatal consequences. Residents were not protected, and we have been lucky that we have not had a national tragedy at this building.
The chief fire officer also found that the fire alarm system did not work, which again calls into question the “stay put” policy for residents in the event of a fire. He therefore escalated the advice from “stay put” to “full evacuation” in the event of a fire at the premises. Unsurprisingly, he also confirmed that the problems had to be treated with such urgency to mitigate the risk that the work would have to be done within three months. In the meantime, the fire risk was so bad that residents would have to pay for someone to stay on the premises 24 hours a day to alert them to possible fires, costing each two-bedroom flat £1,000. I want to formally thank Stuart Errington, our chief fire officer, and his team for the speedy way in which they dealt with this matter.
There have been cases throughout the country, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) highlighted, of fires in retirement communities. There is evidence to suggest that if those fires had taken place at different times of day, they could have had fatal consequences.  One fire took place at the Beechmere retirement complex—a four-storey complex of 132 extra-care sheltered flats in Cheshire—in August 2019. The fire rapidly spread through the cavities in the walls and the roof space. The fire service was unable to prevent total loss of the flats, but it was able to prevent any deaths. However, there is evidence that if the fire had taken place during the night, the consequences would have been completely different.
In 2017, a fire took place at the Newgrange care home—a two-storey care home in Herefordshire—resulting in two fatalities. The fire service had to rescue 30 people. Finally, in June 2020 in Sunderland, a fire started in the roof of the Croft care home and quickly spread. Some 27 residents had to be evacuated—some from upper storeys. Again, if the fire had occurred at night, we would have had a large number of fatalities.
Turning back to Cestrian Court, I was told in April this year that full remedial work would cost residents £87,000—around £3,000 per resident. Let me say very clearly that it is plainly wrong that residents are having to pay for remedial work that was the responsibility of McCarthy & Stone, which built the properties in the first place.

Rachael Maskell: I have the same issue at Guardian Court in my constituency, which is owned by Anchor Hanover. Just putting a new fire alarm system in these rented properties would cost £114,000. Along with the residents, I lobbied to reduce the cost and the labour costs to £98,500, but this is extortionate for people who have no additional means.

Kevan Jones: I agree. These people are on fixed incomes and cannot just lay their hands on this type of money.
Let’s get this in perspective. Before its £647 million buy-out by private equity in February, McCarthy & Stone was listed on the FTSE 250. It handed out multimillion-pound bonuses in 2019. The chief executive officer earns £658,000, and the company has an annual turnover of £725 million—FirstPort has a turnover of £88 million. I have to say that £87,000 is small beer compared with the amounts being paid to the executives of McCarthy & Stone.
The remedial works at Cestrian Court have now been done, but the cost has fallen on the residents, and that cannot be right. It is also causing a huge amount of distress to those individuals, knowing that for the past 11 years they have been living in a building that could have been a tinderbox. I urge the National House Building Council and the two companies I have mentioned to put in place a scheme to compensate my constituents.
Interestingly, I have had one letter from McCarthy and Stone, but I think I have had five phone calls in the past few days, with it suddenly wondering why it is going to be raised in this debate. In the correspondence, McCarthy and Stone and the NHBC clearly have a dangerous misunderstanding of each other’s roles. I urge McCarthy and Stone and FirstPort to look, along with the NHBC, at who is responsible for this. Again, McCarthy and Stone’s attitude is, “It’s not our problem. It’s gone away”, but I think it is.
In conclusion, the Minister needs to consider new clause 1 to the Building Safety Bill, which calls on the Government to establish a review of construction industry payment practices. The current legislation contains no  protections for residents such as those at Cestrian Court, given the height of the building. I understand well why the emphasis to date has been on the height of a building, but I urge the Minister to consider some of these buildings, and look at how we can better co-ordinate fire safety at a local level, and ensure that the inspection of new properties does not leave residents vulnerable.
I urge the Minister to take Cestrian Court as a case study that demonstrates the disjointed system for leasehold arrangements in this country, and the impact of that on fire safety. Residents of Cestrian Court have been fortunate that there was no fire, but one wonders what would have been done without their persistence in raising this issue and arguing that things should be done. Companies such as McCarthy and Stone portray the dream of a retirement for the elderly through glossy brochures and TV adverts, but all they have sold in my constituency is a potential nightmare. If a fire had taken place in that building, there would have been a need for some prosecutions.
Importantly, anyone living in a McCarthy and Stone property today should ask what fire certificates and regulations have been put in place. Indeed, I urge every fire authority to go into McCarthy and Stone properties to check that we do not have the horror story that we have at Cestrian Court. I thank the residents of Cestrian Court for their doggedness and determination in raising this issue. I feel heartily sorry for them as they have been left in this position through no fault of their own. It is another example of where people make money out of developments, but those individuals who have often put their life savings into wanting a happy retirement are left out of pocket. I am sorry, but that cannot be right.

Christopher Pincher: I commend and congratulate the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) on securing this debate, and on bringing this important topic before the House. It is a matter that we all believe to be of grave concern.
Let me begin by saying how important I and the Government believe it is that we further develop the later living and retirement housing sector. Many people in our country live in very large homes. That is fine for the many people who are happy to live in those homes, but we know full well that many people would like to downsize. It is economically sensible for them to do so, as well as good for their health and welfare. Unfortunately, however, there are not enough retirement and later living properties in our country in the right places, and with the right quality, care levels and social networks to provide that opportunity. We want to do more to help with that, but it is disappointing and concerning to hear the story that the right hon. Gentleman has presented to the House, so I am very happy to look at the specifics that he has raised and work with him to ensure that the challenges that he has brought to our attention are addressed.
We have, however, introduced substantial reforms through the Building Safety Bill, which, with the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, will strengthen our building safety regime. We have also taken action to ensure that care homes and residential places are safe, because we all want those living and working in retirement communities to feel safe. We have listened to concerns  about fire safety in care homes and specialised housing, and we are currently exploring the evidence surrounding risks that may exist in buildings occupied by vulnerable individuals. We are also conducting a full technical review of Approved Document B, which is the statutory guidance to building regulations, where we will look at the fire safety provisions in care homes and specialised housing. As I say, I will also consider the points that the right hon. Gentleman has raised about Cestrian Court and other places.
While we have already made important changes, we fundamentally need to change the culture so that residents’ concerns are listened to and, where problems arise, they are dealt with swiftly and efficiently. The Building Safety Bill is bringing forward the biggest reforms in nearly  40 years and will establish a building safety regulator. That means that in the future, later-living homes and specialised housing that are in scope will be covered by the new, more stringent building control regulatory regime during design and construction. This will ensure that corners are not being cut and buildings are built to a high standard. The new regime will strengthen regulatory oversight before building work commences; throughout construction, including before major changes are made; and when building work is complete.
Importantly, the Bill also paves the way for a national regulator for construction products to oversee a stronger and clearer construction products regulatory regime, which will apply to all four nations—both Great Britain and Northern Ireland. That national regulator, which will be established in the Office for Product Safety and Standards, will have robust market surveillance enforcement capability to take action against companies found to be breaking the rules, including removing unsafe construction products from the market.

Kevan Jones: I welcome what the Minister is saying about the future. I just wonder what can be done to ensure that not just Cestrian Court but other properties are safe. If Cestrian Court was built by McCarthy and Stone to the shoddy standards that left my constituents in peril, is there any way that McCarthy and Stone could be made to check—or that the Government could perhaps check, through the fire authorities—that the other facilities that it has built meet standards? I would hate to think that one of its other homes might go up in smoke, leading to the tragedy that we have, I think, very narrowly avoided at Cestrian Court.

Christopher Pincher: The right hon. Gentleman raises an important point. We certainly want, through the changes that we are making, to improve the building control regime in local authorities around the country, and that is what we will achieve through the Building Safety Bill. I also draw his attention to the changes that we are making in the Bill to amend the Defective Premises Act 1972 to extend the period of retrospective action that people can take if they find their property to be defective. We are also including in that Bill a clause that will ensure that building owners or freeholders must take all reasonable steps to find ways of dealing with remediation, and exhaust those steps, before they pass on costs to the residents and leaseholders. I think those are two important steps in the Bill, which I hope will find support across the House.
Our package of reforms will help to make sure that construction products placed on the market are safe and that the public can be confident that products, including those used in the construction of care homes, will perform as they are intended to. The safety of retirement homes under 18 metres will be overseen by the building safety regulator, as part of its responsibility to oversee the safety and performance of all buildings. The regulator will work with the construction industry and technical experts, commissioning research and conducting consultations where necessary to make recommendations to the Government for improving building regulations. By doing so, it will drive both a culture change in the sector, and improve the safety and performance of all buildings. It will also drive improvements in building safety by overseeing the performance of building control bodies, as I said to the right hon. Gentleman, through a robust professional and regulatory regime for both registered building control approvers and local authority building control departments.
It is vital that the fire safety regime for these buildings is comprehensive and is working as it should. The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 requires those responsible to ensure that they regularly assess risks from fire to ensure they can take mitigating action to reduce the risk, so it is as low as reasonably practicable. This is not a one-off process or tick-box exercise, but one that requires the ongoing, day-to-day consideration and management of fire risks. That is especially important for the safety and wellbeing of residents of care homes, and other later life and specialised premises. The duties placed on building owners and responsible persons under the fire safety order will be further strengthened by clause 136 of the Building Safety Bill, which takes forward proposals to place a small number of additional duties on them. They include improving co-operation and information sharing, providing residents with relevant fire safety information and enforcing compliance through strengthening the standing of guidance. That will help with compliance and more effective enforcement action in the future—the sort of thing the right hon. Gentleman was talking about.
The Home Office also intends to bring forward new regulations that will implement the majority of the recommendations made by the Grenfell Tower inquiry in the phase 1 report, which require changes in the law. The measures will help to make all residential buildings safer by placing new duties on responsible persons, which will improve fire safety for their residents and assist fire and rescue services in planning for, and responding to, a fire.
We want to support people to stay safe in their homes. Fire and rescue services visit homes and offer person-centred fire safety advice, providing smoke alarms and other fire safety equipment where necessary. To support those physical visits, the National Fire Chiefs Council has created an online tool to allow residents to make informed self-assessment choices and be guided on any other steps they can take to improve their fire safety. The Government are also playing their part, working closely with the National Fire Chiefs Council and local fire and rescue services to deliver the long-running “Fire Kills” campaign. Through a mix of media advertising, partnership working and promotional activity, the campaign has helped to drive down the number of fires and fire- related fatalities to its current historic low levels.
I know that there is a united desire across the House to ensure that those living in retirement communities feel safe in their homes, and I am genuinely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for bringing these issues to our attention tonight. Debates such as this are incredibly important as we work together to protect all residents. I assure him and Members across the House that the Government remain committed to helping residents in what we know is a most challenging situation, because in doing so, we will ensure that there is public confidence  in the sector—a sector that we are determined to grow, and we have a mutual interest in doing so—and bring about lasting change in an industry that will put its residents’ welfare first. I am grateful to him and I thank him for his attention.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.